Showing posts with label employers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label employers. Show all posts

15 December 2010

The good reference

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.

06 December 2010

Cold comfort

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.

16 November 2010

Interviews aren't all that they seem

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.

14 April 2008

What do your referees say about you?

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.

11 January 2008

Shooting yourself in the foot

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.

28 September 2007

What do your referees say about you?

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.

26 September 2007

Monash University

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.

15 September 2007

Recruitment Agencies

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.

07 September 2007

Stupid Employers

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.