Don't Laugh this is Serious

Are you stuck for a reference?

2011-01-14T12:46:00.000+11:00

Do you have a supervisor who is giving you a hard time? Some bosses would do nothing to help you into another job, or worse, are just plain vindictive and destroy any chance of advancement by actively working against you. Others are so involved with their own priorities they know little about you and the work you do. Would you trust your boss to give you a decent reference?

Put yourself in their shoes. They have deadlines to meet. Yes, I know, we’ve all been there, but if they stuff up they might lose their bonus. They might not be able to get that new Beemer they’ve had their eye on recently.

So you ask for a reference. What goes through their mind? Do they think, “How can I help out with their next career step,” or is it something more selfish, “This is not a good time; if I lose them now who’ll fill their place?” But irrespective of what they are thinking they’ll say, “I’d be glad to give you a reference,” but plan to provide a more mundane comment when the employer contacts them: “Yes, their work has been mostly adequate...”

Then when that all important phone call comes through the chances are that all you’ll get in support might be something along the lines: “Yes, attendance has been satisfactory, except when...” “Yes, interaction with other staff is good, though sometimes tea breaks seem to be a bit long on occasions.” Any of these comments will guarantee your name is crossed off the list.

Not all bosses are like this, and quite a few will go out of their way to help. Genuinely. But if you are stuck, don’t worry. You don’t need them.

If you are worried, ask your wife, husband, partner, work colleagues, or old school friends to help you out. It might also be a test of the strength of your friendship. Anyway, you’d be able to help them out should they need a similar favour.

Your prospective employer knows about you because you have applied for the job and you provided certain information. The advantage you have is that they don’t know your friends and relatives. You just have to make sure the information your referees provide supports and agrees with what was stated in your application and what you say at the interview. Ideally, you will have been talking to your intended referees beforehand so that everyone’s statements will match.

Let’s say it’s your cousin that you ask to be one of your referees. Here’s what to do. You and your cousin need get together to discuss your experience so that everything each of you say will match. You need to decide at what point in time the two of you could have been in a working relationship. Think about the things you have done in your last job. Think of a project you might have done. If there was more than one project, so much the better. It may well be that you managed your work or projects entirely by yourself, but for this exercise it will be your cousin who was your supervisor and you reported directly to them. No one else knows that the two of you know each other privately.

Get together and work out how this fictitious relationship might have been. Perhaps they were hired for a special one off project by the company and you were assigned to be their assistant. Brief them in as much detail as possible to enable them to provide information on the project and what your part was. Provide them with notes on your experiences and abilities that they have to speak of. Have a trial so that your cousin can gain confidence. Of course, it would be as well that the cousin was familiar with the type of work you were involved with. This plan will fall on its face if your cousin is inexperienced in any essential aspect of the advice they are supposed to be passing on. So, take that into consideration when you are planning what is to be said.

Your cousin should keep the story straight about your skills and the outcomes of the work. It’s only a small lie. Your cousin shouldn’t build you up into something greater than your abilities. Their task is to promote you as a skilled worker that the prospective employer would be pleased to have. They should talk about you in a positive light, and importantly, with enthusiasm. You have already told of your skills during the interview. So, they are not expected to add to that, but what they say should support your claims. All you want your cousin to do is to tell your story like it really is and not adversely biased by a supervisor or boss who would put you down or make things hard for you. However, you cousin has to do it with passion. They have to say that you were a delight to work with... sorely missed your talents when I left the project... would love to work with them again... etc.

So when the employer telephones Acme Bookbinding for the reference (or wherever it is that your cousin works), your cousin will answer the phone like they normally do, because you will have provided your cousin’s real name and real place of employment to your prospective employer. All your cousin has to do is boast of your credentials; which will be true because you don’t want this job under false pretences. All you want is a helping hand. And the excuse for them being at Acme Bookbinding is that they left la-de-dah (where you currently work) a while ago. They are unlikely to check any of these details, unless you are applying for a job in some highly sensitive area. It’s you they are checking up on; not your referees.

If you use a close relative for this, make sure you all have different telephone numbers and/or email addresses. It could be embarrassing if your reference (husband or wife) has the same or similar contact information as yourself. Of course with mobile phones that’s not a problem. Anyway, you’d be giving work numbers and work addresses, and why would they want to find out where your referees live. That would be delving into someone’s private life more than they should.

The trouble with using someone so close to your personal life is that they will never be able to meet up with any of your bosses. Anyway, that might be a good thing.

The good reference

2010-12-15T13:04:00.000+11:00

Referee reports are often important in getting that job you want. If you have the skills and experience to apply for your dream job, and you write a great application that wins you an interview, and if the interview goes really well, and everything seem set for getting the position, you are going to be seriously annoyed if you later find out your referees let you down by saying something about you with less enthusiasm than you’d like. It takes the edge off your application.

Where do you get a good reference? You’ll get them from the people who like and admire you, of course. They will be trusted work colleagues, friends, or relatives. They might even be your bosses or supervisor, but this isn’t always the case. Line managers are more likely to be interested in their balance sheets or productivity than your career. Mind you, if you come across a manager that has both interests at heart you may be better off staying where you are!

I’ve asked lots of bosses to be my referee. Gauge their reaction when you ask. If they seem in any way reticent don’t use them. If they don’t want you to tell you or discuss with you what they will say or write then don’t use them. I had one referee who passed on their reference to me before it was forwarded for me to review. It was a great reference, nicely worded and in some respects spoke about me in better terms than I would have considered of myself. I made some suggested edits and they were incorporated too.

A lot of referees’ reports are taken over the phone. In anticipation of this, get together with your colleagues who are going to be your referees and work out what is to be said when that telephone call is made. On some occasions a written report has to be provided and email will commonly be used. It would be to everyone’s advantage to consult each other, and share the load on this task. It’s possible for your old boss to remain your referee even though they may have moved. You can also continue to use friends who work in a different organisation as your referee too.

If an old work mate has moved on and works in some other company, and is obviously not your supervisor, don’t hesitate to consider asking them if you suspect your boss may not be as helpful to you in getting another job. Of course, the people you approach must take the responsibility seriously. And of course, they must be willing to give you an excellent report. You must convince them to speak about you in glowing terms, because that’s what may well be happening with your competition for the job.

If it is a requirement that one of your referees be your supervisor and you refuse to do this you may have to sit through an awkward period of questioning at the interview, but don’t use them if they will undermine your chance of winning the job. Remember, everyone has experienced troubles at work and the interview panel may well understand your reasons for your choice of referees.

Cold comfort

2010-12-06T12:35:00.000+11:00

Sarino Russo staff pushed the notion of what they termed cold calling.

I recall stories from my parents and older relatives. These are people who lived through the depression of the 1930s. You’ve probably watched old movies of long queues of people lining up for food handouts, never mind lining up for a job, and of people walking from town to town in search of work. I feel miserable just thinking about this. Snap out of it!

My mother and aunt used to talk about their experiences of marching the streets of Glasgow, knocking on factory and workshop doors and asking if they had any work; any kind of work. My mother did this in Australia when we first arrived here, and on a few occasions she was successful in getting factory work in stinking, hot, noisy environments that almost caused her to collapse from exhaustion. She carried the memories of one of those employers for year after year on her hands. The chemicals used in the fruit processing factory resulted in dermatitis of her fingers which lasted for years. She suffered sore hands and skin for years, but she never sued nor claimed compensation.

This is nothing to look forward to. If that’s cold calling, who wants it?

I wanted a job that was within my capabilities. A job I felt comfortable doing, something that I would like. My skills were mildly specialised and jobs were few and far between. My partner had less practical skills than me but was far more qualified. Both of us have tried cold calling employers. We wrote to selected employers.

I sent out a series of emails, very briefly outlining our skills, background, and qualifications. Not much more than a hundred words. I wrote just enough to whet their appetites. If I got any bites I would have provided more information and sent my CV too.

I never had any takers. Not one job. Not one interview. I had a few responses saying they were passing my email onto colleagues. I had a few people ask for my CV. No jobs ever came of it. On the other hand my partner has won several jobs. Some people had retained her email for periods approaching 12 months before contacting her and asking if she’d like to come in for an interview. These jobs have never been brilliant in her view, and have all been casual positions or contract jobs.

You often tend to be treated distantly (or shabbily) in such jobs. The permanent staff know you will likely be moving on and consequently don’t want to invest any effort in getting to know you or engaging with you in any meaningful way. Of course, if you just want a job then these niceties don’t matter a bit, and if you do a half decent job you will probably be able to get your supervisor to be referee for you.

So I guess the bottom line to cold calling from my experience is don’t waste your time. Though it can work for some.

Interviews aren't all that they seem

2010-11-16T12:39:00.000+11:00

I was asked to sit on an interview panel. A position had been advertised. Someone had been acting in the position for about a year or more. I knew them only casually, and very pleasant they were too. They were interested in holding onto the job. They were well regarded in the office, well liked, and in so far as I knew did the job well. Of course, to make a permanent appointment the formal process of advertising and interviews had to take place.

From what I could make out, unless they bombed badly at the interview or unless another candidate made a better impression the job was theirs for the taking. So why advertise outside the establishment?

Why indeed. No one wants to spend time writing an application and attending an interview for a job they don’t have a snow ball’s chance in hell of getting. It’s a waste of everyone’s time, and the sooner organisations pull their head out of the sand, and stop doing this, the better for all concerned.

I made two observations. The first related to the manner in which the ‘preferred’ candidate was treated compared with other candidates. The second related to one of the applicants who interested us.

Most people get a bit nervous at job interviews, and as a consequence it can be easy to lose the plot. That list of examples or experiences you wanted to use to demonstrate some knowledge or expertise gets forgotten or misquoted. You goof during the interview and it’s only afterwards when you are feeling relaxed you might remember what it was that you should have said. Too late then. This clearly happened during the interview.

The person chairing the meeting knew the capabilities of the person, knew they were failing in their response to one of the interview questions, and by rephrasing the question, and with a bit of prompting got them to respond fully. No words were put into their mouth. It’s just that these two people had worked together and in a sense one was coaching the other through the interview. Consequently, all questions were responded to fully and very well. This treatment did not apply to other candidates. If they floundered they were not assisted. Consequently, the interview reports were inferior to that of the ‘preferred’ candidate. Coming to a decision as to who to appoint was straightforward. Is this unfair? Sure it is. Unfortunately, there’s not much that can be done about it.

Prior to the following experience I have doubted the honesty of people who say, when advising you that you were unsuccessful for a position, that they liked your application and were forwarding it to a colleague. It sounds very positive, but in my experience nothing has ever happened. Either they lied, or if they did pass on the application it just lay in someone’s bottom drawer for ever or was discarded immediately. I maintained that belief until I had this experience.

This other applicant had submitted a poor application. It was clumsily written due to language difficulties. Their experience was limited as a front counter person. The individual was unsuitable for this particular job, but on a technical level they were very experienced. Their skills didn’t match the advertised position.

Think of a civil engineer with heaps of experience in managing large projects like bridge building. Think of the same person applying for a position as a construction worker. They could probably use a shovel, but they are unlikely to do it well. However, in this example, if that company was about to commit to a contract to build a bridge you might be interested in that person for their engineering background. It was with that idea in mind that he was interviewed.

They were never going to get this job, but their application got them into a meeting with the person who hires and fires. The need for someone with this person’s background came up a few months later. His application was retained, and he was contacted and offered a job.

In the first example. Despite other applicants interviewing very well and in some cases coming across better, they didn’t have the relevant experience for the position, which disadvantaged them. It has to be considered that if someone is acting in a position you have a slim chance of getting anywhere in the process. Your energies may be better spent elsewhere. When you telephone about the advertised position, one of your first questions should be to find out whether anyone is acting in the position. Consider contacting the person who is acting and talking to them. Who knows maybe they might shed some light on the job that you would never hear about through formal channels. What’s the boss like? What’s the company like?

So if an aircraft pilot can’t find work is it worthwhile them applying to be a bus driver? Possibly not. In this example this individual had a great deal of technical expertise relevant to the company. That experience would have been a great help had they been the successful candidate; there was no doubt of that. I never found out whether they were interested in the advertised position at all and whether their goal was simply to make themselves and their experience known to the company. It’s a strategy worth considering but be prepared for a lot of knock backs. It obviously works sometimes.

What do your referees say about you?

2008-04-14T22:28:00.000+10:00

It’s interesting the things you hear about other people. I heard a story about someone who had applied for an interstate job. I gather that, although their work had been done okay and no one had any complaints about the quality of their work, this individual was unpleasant. She was just generally not liked by anyone; not by management nor staff. Everyone wanted rid of her. She got a glowing reference from every referee. They were all glad to see the back of her, and giving her a great wrap was a good way to guarantee she’d go.

I went for an interview for a job I was particularly keen to get. Everything went well at the interview; the interview panel gave me the impression that they’d be good to work with. They had beautiful offices on about the 30th floor of a building with fabulous views, and I think I addressed all the questions well. I left the place happy that I’d done okay. The interview went so well I was more than half expecting a phone call the next day to offer me the job.

I had a very enlightening conversation with one of the interview panel members who rang to say they weren’t going to offer me the job because of a comment by one of my referees. He didn’t go into detail, but recommended I reconsider using him.

To say this was disappointing was an understatement. I was beginning to dislike my current job situation, and this only made things worse. I felt as though I was stabbed in the back, and trapped in the place. Keeping me there may have been the intention. Fortunately, this individual was good enough to tell me who made the unenthusiastic remarks about me. This person was the assistant to the CEO; my manager’s boss. I very quickly arranged an alternative referee.

I explained my recent experience to my new referee. I sought an honest opinion from them. I was trying to assess what they may or may not say on my behalf. I was assured that they would give me a good comment, but being the doubtful Thomas I am, I laboured the point. I explained that unless referees are willing to boast of the individual they are speaking for, to go over the top, to describe them as though they are on a pedestal then there is no point in saying anything. This may have been taxing our friendship, for this was a work colleague rather than a supervisor. Unless you are sure of your referees, don’t use them.

He only had to take one telephone call. He did as promised, and I got the very next job I applied for, and I stayed there for about five years. I keep wondering where I would be today if I had got any of those other jobs I wanted badly, but was knocked out of the race because of a crumby and unfair reference.

If you are feeling game, get someone to ring your referees as though they were an employer and you had applied for a job with them, and have them report back to you with their opinion as to how much regard your referees have for you. A word of warning: if you are going to do this, make sure you do some preparation should your referees want some documentation about this fictitious job.

Shooting yourself in the foot

2008-01-11T12:43:00.001+11:00

I generally don’t particularly like sport. I don’t mind watching the sporting prowess of experts showing off their talent. Sometimes these displays can take on the appearance of an art form, but I can’t stand the bickering that goes on amongst people as they boast of their favourite sporting teams and heroes.

Whenever I have engaged in anything remotely sporting (golf, squash, table tennis) I’ve done so for the fun of it. I’ve generally always relied on the other person to keep score. Most of my fun comes from engaging in the activity and I couldn’t really care less who wins. The competitive part of the activity holds little interest. So, what has any of this got to do with employment?

With almost every job I’ve applied for in recent years, my application and the subsequent interview has had an item in the selection criteria and/or interview question relating to being a ‘team player’ in the workplace. Sporting analogies pervade almost every area of our lives, but at times these analogies are not applicable, and yet people just keep on using them. Anyway, I don’t like them.

So, one day, mostly as an experiment I separated myself from the concept. In an attempt to disassociate myself with this concept at an interview with Telstra, at which ultimately I was unsuccessful, I attempted to place my response to this question in a light which deemphasized sport (ie. being a team player) and emphasized cooperation and working with one another rather than working against people. (Oops, I almost fell into the trap: I could have said: ...working towards a common goal.)

I can’t recall the question the panel put to me, but it would have been something along the lines of, “how do you work in a team?” or “what team values to you aspire to?” or some such thing. So, it was with my bias against sporting analogies in mind that I responded to the question.

Let me tell you how I behave in the workplace. Whenever anyone is in trouble at work, say, they can’t do something in Excel that I know a lot about, I’ve never held back when they ask for help. I do this without hesitation and it doesn’t matter who they may be. I will offer the same amount of assistance to the boss or a new starter. To me, if someone needs help and I can offer it I feel obliged to share what I know. It doesn’t matter whether that person is a colleague, or someone who works in a different section six floors below. To me, if someone puts out a plea I must do what I can for them. By contrast, some people will only assist those in their direct work section. Me, I’ll help anyone. If we all work for the same company we should all cooperate with each other. This attitude grew from several experiences of being in desperate need and being refused assistance because I was located in a different work area. I think that’s despicable. I promised myself never to be like that.

To elaborate on the sporting analogy, the trouble with it is that teams are competitive in their nature. They work against each other. That’s what they are all about. And in the workplace, you can see lots of nasty examples of competition occurring in companies; often referred to as silo building. One department will not assist any others. It’s also common to withhold information or actively provide inaccurate or incomplete information, and shroud themselves in secrecy. I can’t stand that type of behaviour. It’s unproductive.

This is how I shot myself in the foot. So, I’m at the Telstra interview, and it’s going along okay. I felt as though I was responding well to the questions. I was certainly feeling comfortable at the meeting. It was a job I could do easily. Then the teamwork question came up, and I described the above philosophy. I said how I preferred to promote cooperation between work colleagues, and gave examples, and there were a few nodding heads amongst the panel members. I went on to point out the negative aspects of the team analogy and how it generally doesn’t help in the work environment. Crack! The crack was the sound of a bullet entering my foot. I went on to elaborate on the misuse of the term ‘team’ in the workplace, and that it could be considered counter productive for all the reasons I’ve already described. The nodding heads froze in a silent stare. There were a few other questions, and the interview completed, but my response must have bugged them.

A few days later I was contacted by the employment agency that had set me up with the interview. Her advice was that my application was rejected because, “I wasn’t a team player.” I gave her a potted summary of what I had said to the interview panel, and she said, “that’s the same as being a team player.” Well, of course it is, but the interview panel members were too obtuse to recognise it.

My mistake was to assume the interview panel could appreciate an alternative point of view. The moral for me was to never stray from the expected response for standard questions. In some cases, dishonesty is the best policy.

What do your referees say about you?

2007-09-28T13:19:00.005+10:00

It’s interesting the things you hear about other people. I heard a story about someone who had applied for an interstate job. It seemed that although their work had been done okay and no one had any complaints about the quality of their work, this individual was unpleasant. She was just generally not liked by anyone; not by management nor staff. Everyone wanted rid of her. She got a glowing reference from every referee. They were all glad to see the back of her, and giving her a great wrap was a good way to guarantee she’d go.

I went for an interview for a job I was particularly keen to get. Everything went well at the interview; the interview panel gave me the impression that they’d be good to work with. They had beautiful offices on about the 30th floor of a building with fabulous views, and I think I addressed all the questions well. I left the place happy that I’d done okay. The interview went so well I was more than half expecting a phone call the next day to offer me the job.

I had a very enlightening conversation with one of the interview panel members who rang to say they weren’t going to offer me the job because of a comment by one of my referees. He didn’t go into detail, but recommended I reconsider using him.

To say this was disappointing was an understatement. I was beginning to dislike my current job situation, and this only made things worse. I felt as though I was stabbed in the back, and trapped in the place. Keeping me there may have been the intention. Fortunately, this individual was good enough to tell me who made the unenthusiastic remarks about me. This person was the assistant to the CEO; my manager’s boss. I very quickly arranged an alternative referee.

I explained my recent experience to my new referee. I sought an honest opinion from them. I was trying to assess what they may or may not say on my behalf. I was assured that they would give me a good comment, but being the doubtful Thomas I am, I laboured the point. I explained that unless referees are willing to boast of the individual they are speaking for, to go over the top, to describe them as though they are on a pedestal then there is no point in saying anything. This may have been taxing our friendship, for this was a work colleague rather than a supervisor. Unless you are sure of your referees, don’t use them.

He only had to take one telephone call. He did as promised, and I got the very next job I applied for, and I stayed there for about five years. I keep wondering where I would be today if I had got any of those other jobs I wanted badly, but was knocked out of the race because of a crumby and unfair reference.

If you are feeling game, get someone to ring your referees as though they were an employer and you had applied for a job with them, and have them report back to you with their opinion as to how much regard your referees have for you. A word of warning: if you are going to do this, make sure you do some preparation should your referees want some documentation about this fictitious job.

Monash University

2007-09-26T21:54:00.001+10:00

I applied for a job with Monash University, and I've never experienced an interview where I was treated so poorly as I was with them. In hindsight I can only assume the position was earmarked for someone in particular, and they were just going through the motions of advertising and conducting interviews with no intention of offering the job to any of the other applicants.

The position description identified Gerard Toohey (Manager, Student Administration) as Unit Head, and Peter Yates (Director, Services & Systems) as Divisional Director.

Gerard Toohey seemed to be the chair but his heart wasn't in the process. He looked bored throughout. It wasn't so much his posture of leaning on the table while resting his head on his hand that disturbed me, though it set a poor impression of the organisation. It was the fact that during the progress of the interview the meeting was interrupted by someone entering the room. This messenger whispered something to Toohey resulting in him leaving the room part way through the interview. It's difficult to assess a candidate’s performance at an interview if you excuse yourself from the process. The most interesting thing about this experience was that I received a rejection letter the day after the interview.

It doesn't take long to prepare a letter, but it does take some hours to get it through an organisation’s internal mail system, and you have to be very lucky for Australia Post to get a standard letter delivered by the next day unless it's sent by a priority paid service. It takes a while to reach the letter writing stage. Normally the interview panel would meet to decide on a candidate, and while this could be done quickly forwarding a recommendation to the HR section does take time. HR would want the successful candidate to accept the position which is usually done in writing, before doing anything else. Only after this has been completed will the other candidates be advised. There is only one conclusion I can deduce: my letter of rejection was in the post while I was being interviewed.

I have no qualms in identifying Gerard Toohey and describing his shoddy behaviour in the hope that my experience might serve as a warning to other job seekers.

Postscript:
Refer comment posted by Anonymous:

Dear Anonymous,

You wouldn’t know me from a bar of soap and couldn’t possibly have any idea of my background in HR or otherwise. Please don’t make unsubstantiated statements. You seem very sensitive to this item. Could it be that your name is Gerard Toohey. Though, I can confirm I’ve been involved in hiring enough people in my time to know the limitations of the process. Not from the HR side I might add, but from the business side of things. That’s what counts. I know how the process is conducted and how long it takes. Despite your rage I stand by my comments, and yes the interview was indeed rubbish. It was one of the more unprofessional experiences I have encountered. If the cap fits Gerard wear it. And yes, I felt extremely sour after the experience; you have no idea.

Recruitment Agencies

2007-09-15T21:22:00.000+10:00

Recruitment agencies may help some people get work. In my experience they were pretty much a dead loss, and seldom helped. The frustrating thing about getting a job nowadays is that you often have to go through agencies, because their clients, the employers, get the agencies to do the initial filtering. So you’re stuck with them. I found most of the agencies I came into contact with seemed to spend a large amount of energy in fluff and bubble, and provided little genuine service. I don’t think employers are getting value for money, and I’m certain job seekers are getting stuffed around into the bargain.

The agencies that had the jobs that interested me tended to be located in the upmarket side of town in some high-rise building. This was ironic because I thought better service came from agencies at the other end of town. My first experience of them was eye opening. In subsequent visits I found the antics of the staff amusing, and then it became annoying.

Some of the buildings where these agencies are located, with their marble floors and walls, seem so flushed with money that they were almost intimidating. You get out the lift on the 40th something floor, and enter their smart office with plush carpets and mahogany wall panelling and desks. You approach the reception desk to announce yourself to the impeccably dressed and good-looking young female receptionist. Men are seldom seen at the reception desk of these places. She directs you to a seat and calls the person you’re there to meet. You have some time to look around before your name is called. So, you wait in the comfy armchair next to a table with the neatly arranged magazines that you’ve probably never heard of, and would have even less interest in reading. There are often a few other people waiting with you, generally dressed smarter than yourself, usually in suits that could have been fresh off the tailor’s rack that very morning.

In what seems a very short time another charming young woman or young man appears calling your name. A welcoming hand extends in greeting, and they always have such a friendly smile. You feel good, and their small talk seems interesting. Laughter comes easily at their lighthearted jokes as together you the walk down the quiet corridor to an interview room. The view from the interview room window is usually magnificent.

They leave you alone with a questionnaire to complete prior to the interview. The questionnaire is no trouble, but isn’t this the same information you put in your application. So there you are taking in the view from the window over the rooftops to the distant horizon. You spend so much time waiting you think they’ve gone out to lunch, and the panorama becomes boring. You check your responses to the questionnaire, just in case you left something out. No, it’s all there, and you stare out the window again. Daydreaming is preferable to browsing the copy of the company’s annual report that’s displayed on the nearby rack. The pamphlets of the agency’s services or associated companies are generally always in pristine condition. No one seems to touch them. After an annoyingly long time waiting for someone to return you begin to realise that you are alone, not because it takes 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire, but because the individual who has shown you into the room is probably interviewing someone else in the room next door.

Eventually they return and in a very officious manner seek additional information on any interesting aspects you may have included in the questionnaire. They tell you a bit about the position their client has on offer, and after about 10 or 15 minutes you are out the door and on your way home again, often never to hear from them again. All this could have been done by phone. So why did you spend an hour in the car driving into town, paying a fortune at the parking station, and then as much time on the return trip. Half the day is ruined. You would have been better spending the time applying for a job with a real employer that you had half a chance of getting.

I grew to hate employment agencies when I was unemployed. I don’t know how many times I saw a decent job advertised, but had to apply through a recruitment agency. Of course, the real interview might take place if you meet the agency’s requirements, or rather, their interpretation of their client’s requirements. Yes, their interpretation, because they get it wrong. This a real worry because quite often the agency might contact you some weeks later, because despite having passed you over for the job you applied for, they contact you because they believe they have matched you with some other role, and the worrying thing is that they have mismatched you. Was that why I missed out on the original job, because they didn’t understand my skills and experience. For example, so many times they thought systems analyst was the same thing as data analyst. What goes on in their brain: systems = IT; data = IT; therefore systems analyst = data analyst.

I’m feeling cranky because the one and only job I got with the help of an agency was negotiated by telephone. I spotted an okay looking job on one of the web based job seeking sites, emailed my CV, and after only a few hours the agency was on the phone asking some questions; the same questions other agencies ask, after they insist you come into their office for an interview. Why can’t they all do it by phone? This very commendable agency was Ambit Recruitment. Good people to deal with in my experience. So I don’t mind giving them a plug. A few hours later Ambit rang back with an appointment with the agency’s client for the next day. An actual interview with the employer. It went well, and a further telephone call by Ambit saying they wanted me and asking me to drop by to sign a contract, which was the first time I had been in the agency’s office, and I had a job starting the following Monday.

Stupid Employers

2007-09-07T23:52:00.000+10:00

Something that really annoys me with employers is that some of them ask for written referee reports to be provided prior to the interview. This insidious habit should be stamped out. Employers are asking too much by requesting written references at all, but to call for written references from everyone on the short list, prior to the interview, is exceptionally nasty. Don’t play their game.

The relationship you have with your referees exists on a knife-edge balance. If you are on good terms with these people they will probably be happy to support you by saying a few words in your favour. If the relationship is a bit more tenuous you may be in trouble, and if you have the bad luck to apply for a job with a company that requires your referees put their comments in writing you may find you are taxing your friendship, which may ultimately result in them declining to support you.

When the telephone rings from a prospective employer your referees will probably be happy to talk to them. If you were good for the company, they will be pleased to boast of your skills. However, we don’t generally get the first job we apply for, and if your boss or supervisors are your referees, speaking in your favour half a dozen times or more in a month probably won’t bother them too much. It’s part of their job, after all. However, if your referees are put in the position of having to provide a written statement half a dozen times a month the task becomes onerous. And if these stupid employers insist your referees provide a written statement addressing the job selection criteria that task becomes a burden that might make them see you in a less favourable light. It might force you to apply for jobs that are below your skill level.

There is another perspective that these stupid employers seem to have missed. Your referees may well get fed up with it, and if they are easy going may in all likelihood ask you to write up your own reference and pass it to them to sign and submit. So much for the confidential report.

One way of changing this policy is to ask your referees not to participate. Though, if they are decent people they will probably shrug it off saying that it’s no trouble. They are being polite: it’s a lot of trouble. Don’t put them to the nuisance of it. Look after your referees; don’t allow them to be abused by selfish stupid employers.

On a few occasions I have asked employers why they engage in this practice, and the HR section usually give some inane response about being their policy, with little more explanation. It’s probably easier for them. It probably saves them time. Well, in my view, stuff their policy. Take some action to stop it.

In recent years I have tended to exclude referee contact details from my applications. I include a statement in my application saying they will be provided in the event of an interview. Should I be fortunate enough to get to the interview stage I pass my list of referees across the table at the end of the interview. This may also be a gauge of how interested they are in your application. If they ask you for your references before you have the opportunity to produce them you can probably assume they are interested in your application, but if they fail to ask for them I think you can kiss the job goodbye.

One solution to this nasty procedure is to refuse to relinquish control. Don’t provide your referees with your application. When the company HR section later contacts you saying that referee contacts must be provided, explain ever so politely that you understand their request but that you would prefer not to provide them at this stage. Be firm, and remain polite in everything you say. Make up some story if you have to, or simply repeat that you will bring them to the interview if you are short-listed. You might be faced with a response that if you don’t provide contact details your application will be rejected. Now it gets difficult. Will you cave in and let them win, or stick to your guns? Consider this: it’s not generally up to the HR section to determine who gets short-listed. Short-listing is often a decision for the section that needs the staff member. The HR section of the company generally has the task of coordinating the applicants; they don’t usually make the decisions. You’ll know the section contact person’s name from the job ad; ask this HR person that you’re speaking with to refer your request to the contact person. If your application is rejected for this reason and the section gets to hear about it, and they could get to hear about it because you tell them, and if you were a good candidate you may have contributed to changing that company’s policy on recruitment procedures.

Job Interviews

2007-08-28T12:25:00.000+10:00

There may be a lot on your mind when you front up for a job interview, but if you can analyse the people sitting around the table you might walk away with some quality information about the people you could be working for. Try to read the people on the panel. Analyse their mood. Watch how they interact with you and with each other. These people may work together and enjoy each other’s company, or they might hate each other’s guts. Look out for their body language, what they say, and how they say it. If they give anything away it may clarify your decision on whether you want to work there. Anyway, I’ve had some interesting experiences from both sides of the table.

I was at a Queensland university for a job interview a few years back, and on this occasion there must have been about eight or nine people siting around the table. That’s a lot of people for a middle-ranking job. One of the questions I was asked related to Executive Information Systems. I had a good idea of what this was about, having developed a very basic EIS myself. I also had a reasonable knowledge of these systems by talking to other people, who actually knew a lot about them. From what I could gather some were very good for specific purposes, but tended to be restrictive. Anyway, before I digress too much, back to the interview. I was asked a question along the lines of, “What do you know of Executive Information Systems?” There seemed to be an emphasis which raised my heckles: “What do you know of…” it seemed to me. I explained my background in what I thought was a more than adequate response, and felt an overwhelming desire to direct the same question to the person who asked it of me. His response was along the lines of, “I don’t really know, I was just asked to ask the question.” That’s not a bright thing to say, even if it is true. There is a moral here. Don’t engage anyone in dialogue unless you know something of the subject. There wasn’t a solitary person on the panel that I could relate to. They were all thoroughly unlikeable, and that might have come through in my interaction with them. If you don’t click with the people at the interview, you may be dropping yourself in trouble if you actually get the job. So, I didn’t particularly care if I offended anyone.

Another interview I went to was with an agency associated with a government department. A very laid back group of people were sitting in easy chairs around a large low coffee table. It was difficult to know who was chairing the panel; that may have been intentional. I was offered a coffee at the start of the interview, which was very social. They then proceeded to ask dumb questions. The coffee was piping hot, and I could barely drink it. It would have been better had there been somewhere to put it, but here I was juggling it on its saucer, on my lap, amidst the pile of papers I had. Could this have been a test? Moral: always refuse hot drinks; ask for water, if they offer you anything. And the dumbest of questions related to some legislation. One of them asked, “What can you tell us about sub-section 32 of the…(something or other) Act?” What? I was struck dumb. Were they kidding? Had I been more experienced I should have told this guy to pull his head in, but you don’t say that sort of thing at a job interview, particularly if you are inexperienced. You want the job, after all. More than likely this was the question that the person who had been lined up for the job had been made aware of. There was certainly nothing in the job ad that related to anything like that.

I once worked in a small statistics section with a staff of six. One of the staff members had resigned and their position was advertised. The appointment was for assistant to one of my co-workers, and I was asked to join the interview panel. The panel consisted of my colleague, my boss, and me. This was my first experience on an interview panel. I was keen to study every application and derive the short list carefully. I had to smile to myself when I was at one of the Sarina Russo training sessions, and was advised that employers spend only a few seconds scanning the cover page of an application with little more time on the CV.

There were quite a variety of applications. One that comes to mind was a very long letter from someone who described their work history in much more detail than was required, which was interwoven by their life experiences. It was almost a plea. He was selected for interview by my boss, possibly out of curiosity rather than anything, but he failed to turn up. The letter certainly caught our attention but left us wary as to whether he would have been suitable. Don’t write your life story in an application.

This particular position would have required more than basic IT skills, and we had quite a number of people apply who had masters or doctorate degrees. A stance we felt in regard to these applicants was that these people could no doubt cope with the job, but they would see the position as an interim one, possibly they would be bored, and would soon move on. After all, they were over qualified for the job. These applicants were generally discounted for that reason. This was wrong, and I feel sorry for being party to it. If you are more qualified for a job that you are considering, please consider this scenario, and consider writing your application in a less intimidating manner. It’s a difficult one, because you have no idea of who will be reading your application: skilled interviewers, or people like us.

We interviewed about seven candidates. I have to admit being engineer of a post-interview test. At the conclusion of the interview each candidate was given a list of questions. It was a pen and paper test. I had listed all the commands taken directly from the SPSS user manual table of contents. I asked the candidates to write a brief description of what each command meant. No one was expected to know them all. But it was surprising the number of people who claimed expertise in SPSS but could barely respond to any of them. There is nothing wrong with bolstering your experience in you application, but if you lie you might be caught out. Be careful.

There was a young woman who applied internally and was selected for interview. She provided a good application, interviewed well, performed well in the final SPSS test, and her referees spoke glowingly of her. She was definitely a prime candidate for the job, and I offered my opinion as such. However, an issue arose. The issue that eventually saw her being passed over was that she might have outshone her supervisor. I feel saddened that this individual’s chance slipped away due to her would-be supervisor worrying about feeling intimidated by her. There’s not much to be done about this, and I doubt if there is any real solution. All I’m doing here is alerting you to some of the issues in that hope that you will be better armed to deal with the interview experience. And of course the moral here is that if you are unsuccessful in wining the job you felt you should have got don’t be too disappointed as it may not have been your fault.

After brooding on this experience for a while it led me to become more assertive in stating my viewpoint in the few other occasions I’ve been on interview panels. The person we hired did an adequate job, but the other young woman could have been outstanding. I reconcile the experience by recalling that this particular place was one of the more troublesome environments in which I’ve ever worked, and perhaps her missing out on the job was a good thing for her.

Sarina Russo Job Access

2007-08-23T20:07:00.000+10:00

After being registered with Centrelink while on unemployment benefit for a certain period of time you get sent along to an employment agency. It turned out you can choose from a variety of agencies that Centrelink deal with, which was kind of nice, but I didn’t know anything about any of them. So, for no better reason than that Sarina Russo was located in the same building as the Centrelink office at Ringwood, I chose them. I now believe my choice was a mistake, and I should have gone elsewhere.

The staff at Sarina Russo were very welcoming, and I wanted to take advantage of anything they could offer. I soon learnt that my time spent there was largely a waste of time. They provided little help, and I felt that the organisation was staffed by people of limited experience, or at best narrow experience. I continued to attend only because if I didn’t show up they would report my absence to Centrelink, risking my dole being cut. I eventually left when I got a job. My time spent with them was a relatively negative experience, leaving me feeling that other organisations were more obliging. The job that I eventually got was procured by using my own methods and my own application style and writing skills. The Sarina Russo organisation contributed nothing to assist me getting work.

Their office had computer facilities to assist clients find work. This would have been a great service if you didn’t have your own computer, but if you have better facilities at home, and have to spend time hanging around their office because other people were using the computers you tend to get a bit frustrated and annoyed. There were several training sessions, which may have been good if you weren’t sure (ie. didn’t have a clue) of how to apply for a job. I found the training sessions lacking, and there was little attempt to cater for people who wanted to improve their skills. There was some attempt: They ran a seminar with guest speakers, who were actually very good value. They also employed a consultant who purported to assess your interview technique – sounded good, but was a dead loss. Those were the only positive moments I recall.

The training pushed the idea that job applications should be written on one page, followed by your CV. That was basically it. Nothing else. They had a very closed idea of what an application should look like, and how employers deal with applications. They also pressed upon us the need to apply for a certain number of jobs every time we came into the office, and I think it was five jobs, if I recall correctly. The staff trainer I had, had never heard of selection criteria in a job application. That’s astonishing. Almost all the positions I have applied for in the last 15 years have had between 5 and 7 statements in the selection criteria. Responses to these items have to be worded carefully, and an application you care about can take several days to prepare; often more. The idea of applying for several jobs per day is not possible.

There came a point when my household income began to rise. I was still looking for a job, but because there was now money coming in Centrelink stopped my payments. I had still been going to Sarina Russo regularly, and as I had reached the point when one of their staff members had been assigned to me for personal assistance, I was happy to work in this arrangement as I definitely wanted a job, and I wanted to see where this service led. It didn’t lead anywhere. When Sarina Russo realised I was not being supported by Centrelink they refused to provide the personal service.

Given my new situation, I asked if I could continue to use the facilities like the photocopier, printer etc. but they denied my access to all services. As it happened there was a different employment agency a short distance down the street. The opposition. I stepped into the building, and explained my experience with Sarina Russo. The rep was surprised by this behaviour, and offered the use of their facilities (ie. computers, photocopying), despite me not being registered with them.

The Sarina Russo staff didn’t say, but you can guess, that they dumped me because this became a funding issue. Their government funding would have stopped with respect to services provided to me. They weren’t about to provide a service to anyone who wasn’t being funded. I wasn’t an income earner to them and they dropped me like a hot potato. I think that’s it in a nutshell. Sarina Russo are not particularly interested in assisting anyone get a job. If they do manage to find someone work, then that would probably be okay, but their prime purpose in this world for Sarina Russo is to generate income by keeping the government coffers flowing.

Job Applications – Selection Criteria

2007-08-21T12:42:00.000+10:00

Don’t you hate applying for jobs?

Let me rephrase that. Job applications are just fine when you can present you skills and experiences for a position you think might suit you down to the ground. The prospect can fill you with excitement and anticipation of working with your dream organisation, maybe in a great position, and with a marvellous salary to boot. But when you’ve mailed your hundredth application addressing selection criteria that have been poorly worded the letter writing experience takes on an entirely different perspective. Here’s an experience from the other side of the table that relates to selection criteria.

I was working in the state government, and the section in which I worked was in the process of recruiting a new staff member. I wasn’t involved initially, but I was interested, because whoever was employed would be serving in a backup roll to me. I wasn’t involved in the selection process from the start, but was drawn into it. I didn’t see all the applications, nor was I involved in short listing applicants, but I was asked if I would be able to sit on the interview panel. Sure I said, and a small bundle of applications came my way. I spent some time studying the applications, and pretty soon the day of interviews was upon us. It was at that point my supervisor, who was also on the panel, appeared to be in some obvious turmoil.

The position was not an IT position in the conventional sense, as you might envisage the duties of a computer programmer or analyst, but it was certainly an IT related job. The job was described locally as a ‘data’ position in so far as the successful candidate would be working with data, spreadsheets, and databases. It was more of a technical position with some administrative work. And the reason for my supervisor’s agitation was that the selection criteria included a statement on candidates’ policy experience.

The inclusion of a policy component in selection criteria with the public service is a common enough criterion, but this particular position had no policy responsibilities. None at all. The dilemma my supervisor now wished to share with the other two panel members was what sort of policy question we might devise for the interview. My solution at the time was rejected: Just drop the question, I suggested, but no, that was out of the question. My supervisor’s dilemma was that the interview questions had to match the selection criteria. For every item listed on the selection criteria, there had to be a relevant interview question.

So there we were, the three of us, trying to rack our brains to formulate an interview question which enquired into candidates’ policy experience when the job had no policy component. Is this not dumb? You wonder how the recruitment process could have got to the job ad stage, and someone had to write the selection criteria, and after all that, the problem was only noticed the day before interviews were due to take place. So much for the well oiled wheels of big government. I squirmed inwardly when the policy question was put to each of the candidates.

Postscript

I wonder how much time applicants had wasted writing a section on policy in their application, that was never acknowledged.
I wonder how many potentially good applicants didn’t apply because they had no policy experience.
In hindsight, it’s easy to imagine how this occurred. It was probably a cut and paste job that went wrong; probably from some other position that was assumed to be similar.
And the moral of this story: If you don’t fit all the criteria: don’t worry, apply anyway.
There are other lessons, and if the cap fits, wear it.

Centrelink

2007-08-18T22:42:00.000+10:00

I spotted a job ad in the newspaper a few weeks ago. It was from Centrelink. The ad has been playing on my mind since then. I can’t recall the job title exactly, but they were advertising to fill a position in their organisation to investigate fraud. On the face of it, no decent, law-abiding citizen would object to such a notion. A minute later the penny dropped: Centrelink wanted some help in detecting individuals who were claiming more than they should have. I expect they wanted to recoup payments made to single parents if, for example, they had a cash windfall that week (ie. casual work they hadn’t declared), or students who had to change their enrolment and were no longer eligible for austudy payments. To me, that’s not so much fraud as people just trying to get by on the little they have. It’s difficult enough trying to live on the edge, when you are just making ends meet, and then Centrelink employs fraud investigators to check up on you. Yes, I know there are real fraudsters out there, but Centrelink does spend needless effort checking and haranguing honest people and not actually helping them.

Why does the government spend such an effort trying to save a few dollars like this and then drops millions in the drink on other projects. Today the Australian Government announced it had allocated $2.9 million to search for the HMAS Sydney, which sank off the WA coast in 1941. I find it difficult to reconcile government policy that will prosecute people who are struggling and might stretch the truth on their dole form, and the spending of millions of dollars searching for rusty metal at the bottom of the sea. And this funding is in addition to the $1.3 million that has already been allocated toward the search.

Anyway, let me continue. I was unemployed not so long ago, was keen to get back into work, and to help me get by I registered with Centrelink. I tried to adopt a receptive and co-operative attitude, but there is something within that organisation that kicks you in the guts. Of course, my experience with Centrelink was only with unemployment benefit. It’s possible that the recipients of the range of other benefits that Centrelink provides may well have a pleasant experience. I don’t know. I can only refer to my own experience, and it was none too agreeable.

From my first encounter with Centrelink, which involved a ‘seminar’ through to the dreary fortnightly queue in which you have to hand deliver your claim form in order to receive your benefit, the memory of the experience almost makes me shudder. To anyone currently going through this, you have my heartfelt commiserations.

The ‘seminar’ established a them-and-us attitude, that I suspect did more to alienate people than welcome us into a support network. The seminar included the screening of a video which emphasized the consequences of cheating the system, rather than providing a caring environment. Okay, I’m an optimist, but Centrelink was going flat out to turn me against them. The presenter was patronizing, dictatorial, and showed his disdain for the people present. I found the emphasis by the staffer presenting the ‘seminar’ that the benefit was provided by taxpayers and we should be grateful. That’s offensive. My immediate thought at the time, given the age of the staffer, and my own age and years in the workforce, was that I probably had more tax deducted from my salary during my working life than this guy had actually earned as salary in his lifetime. Unemployment benefit is not a gift or simply a handout; it’s a right, and there should be no guilt felt in taking it.

I can empathize with the staff, to some extent. Running these ‘seminars’ must be boring for the staff; the same thing week in week out. And the staff working at the front desk faced with such a variety of emotions from the people making claims must be mind-numbing. Centrelink, you do have an attitude problem. Perhaps you should review your staffing policies. Or do you select your staff to behave the way they do? Thankfully, there are a few decent people there, but too few in my experience.

Who remembers the CES?

2007-08-17T00:21:00.000+10:00

A couple of early experiences with the Commonwealth Employment Service.

There was an ad in my local CES office: Australia Post drivers were required. Now there was an idea, I thought. Curious about this I wanted to find out the salary. So, in nothing more than a casual enquiry of the desk clerk, “What does the job pay?” I was asked to fill in a form, and got no answer to my question. Several months later I received a letter from Australia Post asking me to attend a driving test. I still didn’t know the salary, but I was only half interested in the job. So, I went along for fun. I failed the driving test as it happened, and no one ever told me what the salary was. My goof on the driving test resulted because I failed to obey a street sign. My examiner directed my to pull over to the side of the road. I thought he was checking to see if I could stop without hitting the kerb, but I failed to notice that that section of the road had a no standing sign displayed. I missed that. I was just following his direction. Of course, van drivers will never stop at no standing areas of the road. Oh no, that just doesn’t happen in real life. What a joke.

I had heard that Simpson & Pope was hiring staff at one of their factories. I called at the factory employment office and was advised that the local CES was managing the recruitment. So, I called into the nearby CES office, and after the long wait in the queue was asked, “Are you registered here?” Well no, I wasn’t registered at that office as it happened. I was listed with another suburban office. “You’ll have to go to the office where you’re registered,” the clerk said. So, I drove across town to my own office. Another wait in another queue to hear, “Sorry, we don’t handle Simpson & Pope.” So, I drove back exactly to where I was an hour earlier, and joined the queue once more. This time I was faced with another clerk at the desk, and I was ready to unload my frustration at being given a bum steer, but instead he just gave me a slip to take to the factory employment office, and I had a job.

Of course the CES doesn’t exist anymore. That was quite a time ago. Now we have Centrelink. Shortly after I finished my degree I got a phone call out of the blue. It was someone from the Professional Employment Service, a branch of the CES as it happened. I had no idea such a branch of the CES existed. Well blow me down. I don’t ever recall registering with them, and here they are asking if they can be of assistance. It was really nice to be fawned over. It was like I had a personal assistant who was going to help me get work. I was quite flattered really. I got my own job as it happened, but it did leave me with a very favourable impression. On the other hand, I don’t really have anything favourable to say about Centrelink. I expect others might be able relate to that.