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.

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.

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.

Job Applications – Selection Criteria

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.