turn-offs

A reader writes:

Recently, my company added each employee’s I.D. badge picture to their email. This image appears on every email the employee sends and receives. Employees do not have the option to turn this feature off. Several people in our dept., including myself, are uncomfortable with this. When we approached upper management, we were told this was standard practice and very common in business. I have never heard of another company doing this. Is this a common business practice?

What? No, this is weird.

I’m sure they think it’s making the company appear more personable. Companies frequently think that customers want a more personal touch, and then come up with really impersonal ways to implement it, like the grocery store cashiers who are forced to call you by name as they hand you your receipt. (You’re not fooling me, Safeway!  I know you don’t really know me!) I wish that companies would figure out that what most customers want is a competent, efficient, polite experience, not faux friendship.

Whoops, I’ve gone on a rant. Anyway, I suspect that’s what your company is up to.

If you have legitimate security concerns, or the photos cause customers/vendors to start crossing professional boundaries in ways that make you uncomfortable, you should raise it with your boss. Otherwise, I think you probably need to resign yourself to it, in the way that some waiters have to resign themselves to announcing their name when they greet a new table.

But don’t let them tell you it’s standard practice, because it’s not.

{ 91 comments }

A reader writes:

I am an HR Generalist at a health care facility in a semi-rural area. I wanted to get your opinion on having spouses involved in a candidate’s job search. Specifically, calling to check on the status of an application, asking why the candidate did not get an interview, hired, etc.? I typically thank them for calling, and then ask to speak with the candidate directly. I consider this a negative for the candidate because it seems like they do not have the motivation nor the desire to conduct their own job search. When I lived in a major metropolitan area, I never encountered this phenomenon.

A spouse should never contact an employer or a prospective employer. Not unless it’s to say the spouse is in the hospital and unable to come to work or make it to the interview.

There are no exceptions to this.

It looks unprofessional and, as you said, it raises questions about why the spouse isn’t bothering to make the call themselves.

Why do people do this?!

I have a theory, actually: I’m convinced anyone who does this is in one of those unsettling relationships with no boundaries, where they share an email account and never see their friends without the other one there and almost definitely aren’t allowed to stay in touch with exes. And if that’s your thing, great — but don’t assume the rest of the world wants to play by your rules, because we don’t. (And that’s the weirdest part of it, actually — the assumption that other people will accept and embrace this boundary-less world they’ve created between the two of them. That’s their deal, not ours.)

{ 38 comments }

I’ve said this before, but apparently it’s time to say it again.

When I’m asked for an informational interview, I’ll generally explain that my workload usually prohibits that but that I’d be happy to answer the person’s questions by email.

The person is then never heard from again.

This tells me: (a) The person didn’t actually want an informational interview and was hoping to turn it into a job interview without my consent, and/or (b) the person wouldn’t have had any plan had I agreed to meet, and it would have wasted my time. Oh, and perhaps also (c): The person is randomly asking for people’s time without a real need or desire for it because they read somewhere that informational interviews will help them in their career, and thus isn’t very considerate.

If you’re asking for an informational interview, you need to have a plan before you make the request. And if once you get a response, you realize that you’re without a plan, you need to come up with one. Otherwise you end up making a pretty bad impression, and those are hard to overcome.

{ 22 comments }

Are you one of those people who shares an email address with your spouse (like JohnAndAngela@email.com)? I don’t understand why people do this at all. (Email accounts are free, after all, and even if you don’t care about privacy, maybe your friends who are emailing you do.)

But if you’re job seeking, you really should open your own account, with a name that doesn’t sound like I’m emailing two people when I correspond with you.

Prohibitive? No. Slightly odd? Yes.

{ 17 comments }

I recently received this email (identifying details removed/changed):

My name is __ and I am helping a friend of mine find a new position as is he is a recent graduate. His name is John and he is looking for a position whereby he can work within a nonprofit setting. He recently graduated from __ with a Bachelor’s Degree in History. He is open to entry level positions and is available to interview immediately. Feel free to contact him directly if you have an interest in speaking with him. Thanks!

To be clear, I don’t know the sender of the email.

Curious, I wrote back to the sender and asked what his relationship was to John’s job search. He replied:

He recently relocated to the area so I told him I would help him with his job search.

This. is. such. a. bad. idea.

Think about it: This reflects badly on John. He can’t even conduct his own job search? It’s one thing for the friend to send John an ad and suggest he apply for it; that happens all the time. But then John needs to be the one putting the effort into reaching out to the employer. Since he didn’t, I’m left wondering why. Is he lazy? Is this email really from a mother/girlfriend trying to run his job search for him? (That happens.)

Plus, as I’ve written before, employers want to know you’re interested in this job in particular, not just any job. This guy doesn’t even know about the existence of the job. Yes, it’s true that I’ll sometimes approach non-applicants myself who I think might be good for the job, but those are people whose credentials are so strong that it makes sense for me to try to recruit them. This rarely applies to recent grads without work experience.

Don’t do this to your friends.

As a side note, this is totally different from forwarding someone’s resume to a personal contact of yours — someone you actually know — and saying, “Hey Joe, this good friend of mine might be perfect for your opening. He’s applying through your normal channels but I wanted to tell you I think he’d be a great fit for you guys because ____.” That’s networking, as opposed to making your friend look lazy/uninterested.

{ 10 comments }

Perhaps I’m being close-minded here, but it strikes me as a bad move to devote the top third of your resume (or really any part of your resume) to the various leadership roles that you hold in your local club devoted to sexual dominance, submission, and bondage.

The resume is otherwise completely professional.

{ 28 comments }

If you are applying for a job and tell me that you can do TWO jobs that I’m hiring for, combining them into one, and I tell you that’s really not possible because the workload of each is a full-time job on its own, you should believe me.

I know that job-seekers are often told that they should propose new and innovative solutions to employers’ problems, and that’s great — but if the employer assures you that you’re off-base about something internal like workload, they probably know what they’re talking about. Unless you’ve seen reason to believe them incompetent, you should believe what they say.

It’s irritating when a candidate keeps insisting that they can do two jobs as one person, after I’ve already explained that won’t work. Here’s why: I am competent. I hire competent, efficient people who produce at very high levels. We don’t have slackers sitting around with little to do. We have the opposite problem: too much work. I know this because I manage the organization, for the love of god. I monitor workload levels like teen girls monitor Robert Pattinson.

By all means, make the suggestion originally if you want to. After all, many places are mismanaged and maybe do have three people doing a job that could be done by one person. But I’m not that manager, and I don’t operate that way — so please don’t persist when I explain to you why it’s unworkable. When you insist that you are a better of judge of something very hard to perceive from the outside like workload, despite what I tell you, it’s hard to think you’re not being a naive and/or presumptuous d-bag. Cut it out.

{ 13 comments }

If part of your job application strategy is going to be to point out a grammatical error on the employer’s Web site, please make sure that it’s actually an error.

I received a cover letter last week that opened this way: “Despite my eagerness to learn as much as I could about the position, the first thing that I noticed on your Web site was a grammatical error.”

She then quoted the “error.”

Except that it wasn’t an error. It was perfectly correct. She had a misunderstanding of comma usage.

Now, I am obsessed with grammar and usage, and I am all for pointing out possible grammatical errors, but if you’re going to do it in a cover letter, you really, really want to be sure that you’re correct.

Otherwise you look both pompous and silly (and in her case, not very bright), and it’s not a good thing when the hiring manager feels embarrassed for you.

{ 9 comments }

You know what’s not a good idea? Telling the person screening my calls that I’ll “know what the call is about” and refusing to elaborate further, when in fact I have no idea who you are and we’ve never spoken before.

You know who does this, aside from overly aggressive salespeople? Job candidates who think that this brilliant trick to get them past the gatekeeper will help them get hired.

You know what happens when they get put through to my phone line? I let the call go to voicemail, listen to their message, discover they’re calling about a job, and immediately forward their message back to the original person they spoke with, with instructions to call them back and tell them we don’t take unsolicited calls about jobs.

You know who immediately ruins any chance of me considering their application? People who do this, demonstrating total disregard for honesty or our clearly stated policies that we don’t take unsolicited calls about jobs. I put that policy in place for a reason. I’m sorry that you don’t like it — but it’s not there for you; it’s there to help me. But at least now I know that I don’t want to work with you.

I know there must be job search “tips” out there that encourage this ridiculous practice. I want to hunt down whoever is encouraging it and slap them.

{ 5 comments }

I think I want to start a “turn-offs” series where I just complain about things that turn me off about candidates. (Or maybe, um, I already have.) Here’s the scenario for today’s:

We place an ad. It clearly states that the position is based in our headquarters in Washington, D.C. The candidate, who does not live in Washington, applies. We go through a phone interview. We go through an exercise or writing sample. We go through an interview.

At same point not at all near the start of this process, the candidate mentions, casually, that they’d want to work from their home in a city hours and hours away from D.C. I tell them that actually, as the ad said from the beginning, the position is based in our office, and that we’re committed to that for various reasons. They then act (a) surprised and (b) often, as if it’s too bad that we’re not open-minded and visionary enough to see why their plan is a better idea.

Look, I am a huge fan of telecommuting. Huge. I work from home on occasions when I need to, and I’m fine with others doing that too. And I have some employees who work remotely full-time. But for that latter group, the full-time telecommuters, they either (a) worked with us for years before converting to full-time telecommuters, so they knew our culture and expectations well, and we knew and trusted their work ethic, or (b) have jobs that require that they be based in some other city because of the nature of the work.

But with most of the jobs I’m hiring for, it’s far better for the organization if the person is based in our office … because they have to manage people, or work with others where face-to-face conversations help a lot, or absorb stuff that you’ll take in like osmosis if you’re physically present but really have to work to get if you’re far away, or whatever.

And yes, I know that all of that can be done remotely, and there’s technology that helps, but I have watched people try, and an awful lot of the time, it’s just not the same. At a minimum, it can inconvenience other colleagues. And worst case, the person never quite picks up on our culture and way of doing things and it shows. And that’s not a risk I want to take with a stranger when I don’t have to. Maybe if you’re a rock star candidate and I have no other rock star candidates. Maybe.

But I don’t like the bait-and-switch. I advertised the position as based in a specific city for a reason. If you want to know if being a full-time telecommuter is an option, raise it up-front, not halfway through the process. I know they’ve waited to raise it because they’re hoping to wait until I’m so impressed with them that I’ll be willing to be flexible on this point, but the problem is that it comes across as disingenuous to wait that long.

And that’s today’s turn-off.

{ 12 comments }