There's been an increase of what I like to call Mulligan Stew job descriptions. If you aren't familiar with Mulligan Stew, it's essentially a meal made from all sorts of things thrown together. In cooking, the outcome can be delicious. When it comes to job descriptions, mixing a whole bunch of random responsibilities together can be a catastrophe.
My client, we'll call him Pete, found one of these positions just last week. 75% of the job suits him perfectly. The position requires someone with the sales, networking, marketing and presentation abilities Pete has to offer. The remaining 25% of the job, which the posting states the candidate must have experience with, includes preparing financial statements, budget reporting and technology functions. There's even more to the position than I've referenced. 14 bullet points of various qualifications, to be exact. You get the point.
What's likely happening is the organization is in the position to add someone to its staff, has several functions suffering at the moment and is trying to solve all of its issues with one key hire. Perhaps they'll get lucky and find that perfect candidate. More than likely, they won't. Even Pete recognized the problem. His words, "they are looking for the impossible."
When companies are looking for the impossible, it's a great time to toss your name in the hat. Reach out to the organization. Make it clear what you can deliver on and what you can not. Wish them luck, in a sincere way, in finding the person capable of all outlined functions. Couple that with the suggestion they consider your abilities and what you could immediately offer the organization in terms of bottom line contributions should the position prove difficult to fill. In the end, it's all about profitability. If you can show hiring you, even though you don't have the expertise in all requested areas, is better for their bottom line than their current plan, it's a winning outcome.
For the job that Pete found, the company is likely going to think they have to make a decision of where to take a hit. They'll believe they are either going to have to hire someone with the talents to bring in connections and sales while crossing their fingers the person can figure out the books or they'll have to hire someone who is up on maintaining and preparing financial statements with the hope they will find the time and the social means to work networking circles and pound the phone. If Pete can help them see profitability in another option, hiring him and outsourcing/reassigning the bookkeeping/technology functions, he may just be able to be the one to lead the way to an outcome where everybody wins.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Getting Past Receptionists
Receptionists deserve an apology. They get blamed by the masses for not putting calls through to key personnel. They are the supposed obstacle to job seekers being able to effectively follow up on opportunities and make valuable connections with decision makers.
Contrary to popular belief, there is no receptionist boot camp where those screening phone calls are taught to make your efforts futile. The reason receptionists stick callers in voice mail or throw job seekers to human resources is because the caller hasn't taken the time to make the call important. You can't get to an important person if you don't have something important or valuable to say.
The most common mistake job seekers make when calling a company is telling whomever answers the phone too much information. There is this knee jerk reaction to explain how you're looking for a job, don't want to be a bother, are hoping to talk with someone and, if the person missed it the first time, you're looking for a job. Blah, blah, blah. That type of lead in is all about you. Never mind that person likely has other lines to answer while your babbling on.
Anytime a job seeker calls a company, the approach needs to be the same as any other business call. It is a business conversation, after all. It's not a plea for a charitable contribution. Success relies on knowing who you wish to reach (this means doing some homework), what you can say to make your call important to them and getting to the point as soon as possible.
When the receptionist answers start with a simple, "John Smith, please."
You'd be surprised how many times you get passed through with no explanation. It's not always the case though. You might get hit with "who may I say is calling?" No big deal. Tell the receptionist your name and leave it at that unless prompted for more information. If you sound confident, your call will have an air of importance and won't be as likely to be screened.
Let's say it's not your lucky day and the receptionist decides to ask more questions. Answer any questions honestly without turning it into a mini autobiography. Stay on point and share information that would make the call valuable to the person you are hoping to reach.
Of course, the best way to get through to someone in a hurry is to have been recommended to call that individual by another. Referrals gained through the networking process are gold. To be able to say something like "Jane Doe gave me his number and told me to call," takes a lot of stress out of the situation.
Contrary to popular belief, there is no receptionist boot camp where those screening phone calls are taught to make your efforts futile. The reason receptionists stick callers in voice mail or throw job seekers to human resources is because the caller hasn't taken the time to make the call important. You can't get to an important person if you don't have something important or valuable to say.
The most common mistake job seekers make when calling a company is telling whomever answers the phone too much information. There is this knee jerk reaction to explain how you're looking for a job, don't want to be a bother, are hoping to talk with someone and, if the person missed it the first time, you're looking for a job. Blah, blah, blah. That type of lead in is all about you. Never mind that person likely has other lines to answer while your babbling on.
Anytime a job seeker calls a company, the approach needs to be the same as any other business call. It is a business conversation, after all. It's not a plea for a charitable contribution. Success relies on knowing who you wish to reach (this means doing some homework), what you can say to make your call important to them and getting to the point as soon as possible.
When the receptionist answers start with a simple, "John Smith, please."
You'd be surprised how many times you get passed through with no explanation. It's not always the case though. You might get hit with "who may I say is calling?" No big deal. Tell the receptionist your name and leave it at that unless prompted for more information. If you sound confident, your call will have an air of importance and won't be as likely to be screened.
Let's say it's not your lucky day and the receptionist decides to ask more questions. Answer any questions honestly without turning it into a mini autobiography. Stay on point and share information that would make the call valuable to the person you are hoping to reach.
Of course, the best way to get through to someone in a hurry is to have been recommended to call that individual by another. Referrals gained through the networking process are gold. To be able to say something like "Jane Doe gave me his number and told me to call," takes a lot of stress out of the situation.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Take 5
Just a quick note to let you know I'm stepping away from the blogosphere for 5 days. New York City, here I come. Don't forget about me while I'm gone.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Companies Having a Hard Time Hiring
Many companies are having a hard time hiring qualified individuals to fill their open positions. Yep, I'm writing this post in August of 2009. I'm fully aware of the economy and high unemployment numbers. Living in Michigan, it's impossible not to be.
Care to hazard a guess why some companies can't seem to find the right person for their needs? One reason is somewhat obvious. What companies need their employees to know is evolving. Some are caught waiting for the workforce to catch up in terms of training and education.
A less obvious reason for a shortage of qualified applicants is the fact many individuals who are gainfully employed aren't looking for other opportunities. They believe things are bad enough it is best to hunker down with a job they hate, ride this economy out and wait for things to improve before attempting to find another job. "I should be thankful I even have a job," is something I hear a lot.
When those who are currently employed sit the job hunting process out, it leaves employers in the position of having to choose mostly from the unemployed. Before anyone gets out of joint, I'm not taking a dig at those who are out of work. I know many are great people with valuable skills. As I said before, however, many of those who are currently unemployed come from select industries and skill sets. Industries that are thriving and haven't been touched by layoffs or closures don't have a lot of people in the unemployment pool with backgrounds directly matching their hiring needs. It's an adjustment to be looking at candidates in terms of "who can we train" versus "who has the background most in line with what we do who will hit the ground running?" This is especially true because hiring managers hear the same unemployment statistics as the rest of us and assume high percentages translate into an abundance of options for their open positions.
For those of you who feel stuck in jobs you hate or don't find fulfilling, now might not be as bad of a time to look as you've assumed. It may seem like you are competing against the masses based on the sheer numbers of people applying for jobs. In reality, there may be fewer individuals who match your credentials vying for a position than what you would experience in a boom economy.
Care to hazard a guess why some companies can't seem to find the right person for their needs? One reason is somewhat obvious. What companies need their employees to know is evolving. Some are caught waiting for the workforce to catch up in terms of training and education.
A less obvious reason for a shortage of qualified applicants is the fact many individuals who are gainfully employed aren't looking for other opportunities. They believe things are bad enough it is best to hunker down with a job they hate, ride this economy out and wait for things to improve before attempting to find another job. "I should be thankful I even have a job," is something I hear a lot.
When those who are currently employed sit the job hunting process out, it leaves employers in the position of having to choose mostly from the unemployed. Before anyone gets out of joint, I'm not taking a dig at those who are out of work. I know many are great people with valuable skills. As I said before, however, many of those who are currently unemployed come from select industries and skill sets. Industries that are thriving and haven't been touched by layoffs or closures don't have a lot of people in the unemployment pool with backgrounds directly matching their hiring needs. It's an adjustment to be looking at candidates in terms of "who can we train" versus "who has the background most in line with what we do who will hit the ground running?" This is especially true because hiring managers hear the same unemployment statistics as the rest of us and assume high percentages translate into an abundance of options for their open positions.
For those of you who feel stuck in jobs you hate or don't find fulfilling, now might not be as bad of a time to look as you've assumed. It may seem like you are competing against the masses based on the sheer numbers of people applying for jobs. In reality, there may be fewer individuals who match your credentials vying for a position than what you would experience in a boom economy.
Monday, August 17, 2009
When Others Speak For You
This post could get me into trouble. I have a love/hate relationship with recruiting experts. Though the intentions to educate and inspire creative thought are clear to me, I worry their readers are missing the boat on what is really happening at times. So much advice comes off as "do this" and "say that" directives. I fully believe the goal is usually to help job seekers understand the reason certain questions are asked and what employers are hoping to learn about potential hires. When it reads more like telling people exactly what to say in situations or in response to specific interview questions, it gets dicey. It turns me off, honestly. There are individuals who will take suggestions, word for word, and spit them back to interviewers. How is that a good thing?
I see a few problems with the concept of providing stock answers to questions. First, what if the canned answers don't ring true for the individual? Winning a job because of great answers could be setting the person up to fail if he wasn't truly cut out for the culture and expectations. Sometimes not getting a job is the best outcome. Secondly, spoon feeding shuts the brain down. When the focus is more on helping individuals think through the situation at hand, they'll be able to consistently provide valuable answers to questions in interviews. They won't have to rely on the employer asking them the questions they've been able to prep for. It's the old "teach a man to fish" analogy. Third, just as candidates are reading the articles and blogs built around how to answer interview questions, so are employers. Hiring managers frequently complain about candidates being too practiced in the interview process. They are doing their own research in order to get a handle on what candidates are being taught to do to get the upper hand. It's hard to tell what's genuine and what's show. If an employer suspects candidates are giving them stock answers, it makes it hard to trust that individual's account of his interests and abilities.
The point I'm attempting to make is that anyone reading an expert's advice should be paying more attention to the thought process behind a recommendation versus focusing exclusively on what they believe the expert is saying to do to the letter. Once you understand why an expert believes certain responses or actions are ideal, it's easier to determine how the advice suits you and what alterations you may need to make on your end.
I see a few problems with the concept of providing stock answers to questions. First, what if the canned answers don't ring true for the individual? Winning a job because of great answers could be setting the person up to fail if he wasn't truly cut out for the culture and expectations. Sometimes not getting a job is the best outcome. Secondly, spoon feeding shuts the brain down. When the focus is more on helping individuals think through the situation at hand, they'll be able to consistently provide valuable answers to questions in interviews. They won't have to rely on the employer asking them the questions they've been able to prep for. It's the old "teach a man to fish" analogy. Third, just as candidates are reading the articles and blogs built around how to answer interview questions, so are employers. Hiring managers frequently complain about candidates being too practiced in the interview process. They are doing their own research in order to get a handle on what candidates are being taught to do to get the upper hand. It's hard to tell what's genuine and what's show. If an employer suspects candidates are giving them stock answers, it makes it hard to trust that individual's account of his interests and abilities.
The point I'm attempting to make is that anyone reading an expert's advice should be paying more attention to the thought process behind a recommendation versus focusing exclusively on what they believe the expert is saying to do to the letter. Once you understand why an expert believes certain responses or actions are ideal, it's easier to determine how the advice suits you and what alterations you may need to make on your end.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Timing...Everything or Nothing
It's been said timing is everything. For me, that's bunk. Waiting around for the right time often results in nothing. What do I mean? Those putting off making contact with key individuals and companies with the thought of waiting for a more perfect time, often end up with nothing to show for their careful planning. I've witnessed far too many job seekers and sales professionals missing out on valuable connections playing the "it's too soon" or "it's too late to call" mind game. Once you give yourself the task of finding the perfect moment you realize how rare they actually are.
Timing isn't everything. Making now the right time is more valuable. My success in building professional relationships rests in my ability to create the perfect moment in the present versus waiting for some future time when everything is aligned just so. It's all about relevance. Finding a way to make what you have to offer or are looking to do relevant to the person you wish to reach out to is all it takes. It doesn't have to be anything monumental, simply valuable.
For those using "it's not the perfect time" as an excuse for not taking action that could propel your job search or sales efforts, you're making things harder than they need to be.
Timing isn't everything. Making now the right time is more valuable. My success in building professional relationships rests in my ability to create the perfect moment in the present versus waiting for some future time when everything is aligned just so. It's all about relevance. Finding a way to make what you have to offer or are looking to do relevant to the person you wish to reach out to is all it takes. It doesn't have to be anything monumental, simply valuable.
For those using "it's not the perfect time" as an excuse for not taking action that could propel your job search or sales efforts, you're making things harder than they need to be.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Show You're In Demand!
Imagine with me, if you will, a hiring manager reading a resume of an individual who interests him. He calls the person, they talk, and he decides he wants to bring the person in for an interview. "When are you available?", he asks. "Anytime that is convenient for you. I'm wide open," the accommodating candidate offers.
To many candidates, the above response to a potential employer's request for their time seems ideal. In a way, it shows you are going to make the interview with that person a priority. Trouble is, it also gives the impression you have nothing going on. Why is that? Is no one else interviewing you? Are you not getting out and networking in important places? Are you simply sitting at home catching up on all the syndicated shows you were missing while working?
When I was training new hires for the sales positions I supervised, I always impressed upon them the importance answering questions like "when can I call you" or "when can you meet" with specific suggestions of days and times. Responses like "you name it," "whatever works for you" and "anytime" were off limits. Even if their calendars were more bare than Pamela Anderson, they were taught not to give that secret away to a client.
The best answer to this type of question is to provide two or three day/time suggestions. If none of those times work for the person looking to meet with you, ask him to give a few options that work well for his schedule. When you hear one that works for your schedule, claim that option. By handling the function of scheduling an interview the same way business professionals would handle any other meeting, you've helped the other person see you more as a business contact and less like a person sitting at home on the couch waiting for someone to want him.
I'll add one more benefit to being specific. When it comes to the question of when is the best time to call you, if you answer anytime you are left in a constant state of wondering when and if the person will call. It's easy to turn off the rest of your life so you are ready and waiting for the call that could come whenever. That's not good for your psyche or your efforts to stay active and visible during a job search. By giving someone options, such as time brackets on certain days, you are reducing the time spent in limbo and giving the impression of being in demand.
To many candidates, the above response to a potential employer's request for their time seems ideal. In a way, it shows you are going to make the interview with that person a priority. Trouble is, it also gives the impression you have nothing going on. Why is that? Is no one else interviewing you? Are you not getting out and networking in important places? Are you simply sitting at home catching up on all the syndicated shows you were missing while working?
When I was training new hires for the sales positions I supervised, I always impressed upon them the importance answering questions like "when can I call you" or "when can you meet" with specific suggestions of days and times. Responses like "you name it," "whatever works for you" and "anytime" were off limits. Even if their calendars were more bare than Pamela Anderson, they were taught not to give that secret away to a client.
The best answer to this type of question is to provide two or three day/time suggestions. If none of those times work for the person looking to meet with you, ask him to give a few options that work well for his schedule. When you hear one that works for your schedule, claim that option. By handling the function of scheduling an interview the same way business professionals would handle any other meeting, you've helped the other person see you more as a business contact and less like a person sitting at home on the couch waiting for someone to want him.
I'll add one more benefit to being specific. When it comes to the question of when is the best time to call you, if you answer anytime you are left in a constant state of wondering when and if the person will call. It's easy to turn off the rest of your life so you are ready and waiting for the call that could come whenever. That's not good for your psyche or your efforts to stay active and visible during a job search. By giving someone options, such as time brackets on certain days, you are reducing the time spent in limbo and giving the impression of being in demand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
