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.

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.

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.