Showing posts with label employment agencies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label employment agencies. Show all posts

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.

23 August 2007

Sarina Russo Job Access

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.