Why do companies not follow-up after conducting an interview?

Ari asks: Why do companies not follow-up after conducting an interview? I notice a job ad, pitch myself to the employer, am asked to come in to their office for an interview, meet with senior managers, and am told I will receive a follow-up call or email in x number of days. Time passes without a response. I wait another week for good measure and call/email my interviewer or their assistant to inquire and 9 times out of 10 I never receive a response. I can cite numerous examples of this corporate behavior and I don't understand why. If *I* pitch *you* and you respond to me, that indicates I exhibit enough interest to warrant an hour out of your schedule to meet with me. Then you don't respond. I don't get it. On the extreme, I was invited to meet with a firm last year THREE TIMES and was never told the outcome nor was responded to when I asked for a status. Thoughts?

In answer:
Simply, its horribly unprofessional on behalf of the hiring company. Under EU law, there could be a case for legal duress, so most HR managers are on top of this. But in North America and other parts of the world where there is not so much focus on HR and Human Rights law, then such incidents can be common.

A professional would always close out - how ever badly the interview went, and even if it was clearly obvious to all in the room at the time that it was a "Don't call us, we'll call you" opportunity. Plus, a candidate deserves feedback on an interview, and how they can improve/apply more relevantly next time.

I would change your approach in one area, and review your performance in another. Firstly, the way you describe this situation it seems to be happening very often - so if after the stated time period you have heard nothing, go back with "Look, I am assuming I haven't got the position, but would appreciate your feed back on my application and interview performance." That's a far, far softer approach than a "have I got the job or not" question, and would allow even a wholly negative reaction to be delivered.

Secondly, I would review your choice of posts applied for, or your interview performance. Ask a friend before you apply for any new positions to check your application through for errors; if they think its appropriate and OK, then its probably your interview experience which needs a bit of buffing, so again ask a friend who has been a hiring manager to give you a mock interview, or take some training. Once you have learnt the skills, the situation should not repeat.

Good Luck!

Are you better than your resume?

Steve asks: Are you better than your resume? How do you overcome this as a manager looking to hire or as a candidate trying to get the job? Maybe you've moved around too many times, even though YOU know you have excellent reasons. Maybe your degree is not in Finance, but rather in Art, but you are the best candidate for that wall street job, and you're certainly better that the guy you are competing with that has 10 stable years at the same position and an MBA in Finance. How do you overcome this as a candidate, or as a hiring manager, are you open to looking past this? To clarify, please assume that the candidate has relevant industry experience that is equivalent to a degree in the chosen field.

In answer:
There are three things to fulfilling any job requirement - skills, experience (delivered), and relevancy. So, you could be the best trained Cha-Cha-Cha dancer in the world, with a part time interest in stocks and shares trading which is how you live and made a fortune on; and now as your championship level professional dancing career comes to an end, applying for a full time finance post on Wall Street.

As a Wall Street HR director, would you take that enthusiastic amateur with some skills in the area where your job exists, that are unproven except in his own bank account - versus a 10 year Wall Street veteran with an MBA? Thought so.... which one would you hire if you were a cruise ship director looking for entertainers?

If you can't as a candidate match and answer skills, experience and relevancy, then by any HR director or Recruiter there will be a gap in your skills versus the job description, which they will read as risk. I took a professional sports person as my example here because every HR director and Recruiter loves to meet a world champion, plus they will also tell you that professional sports people come with a wholly ingrained focus and will to win, which makes career changing for them very easy.

If that truly is the candidates chosen path/goal, then I think only two strategies will work. Firstly, apply for the job anyway and after a written submission make a telephone call follow up - its your enthusiasm which will count and sell you. You may not get that job, but may well be offered a lower position on which to prove yourself against the experience track record you presently lack. The second option is to network in the chosen area - both attending meetings, as well as writing and calling the heads of the various companies, saying why you want to work in that field for them.

Career changing is an accepted part of the modern world, but during and for a period of five years after the transition period, there is a price to pay against the skills, experience and relevancy calculation in any hiring organisations mind - simply, close the gap through your focus, enthusiasm and commitment.

Good Luck!

Can a well written CV and cover letter get you to the interview, independently of experience?

Kevin asks: Can a well written CV and cover letter get you to the interview, independently of your experience? Of course, this depends on the position your applying for, and the experience required for it. I am not suggesting writting anything that is not true, just want to know how important these two elements can be, and how to catch the attention of recruiters. Can you help me out on some tips on structuring a very good CV and cover letter? Should these vary from sector to sector (e.g. financial vs. marketing)? Thank you!

In answer:
In summary: if you don't have the minimum skills required for the post, then NO; if you do have the basic skills to do the job, then YES your chances of being interviewed are substantially increased.

You have to think about the job filling process as a horse show jumping event - even before you apply there are a number of decisions made which effect who can apply, because that's where the business and the manager involved define the required skill set mix and location.

Once you enter the process, if you can't jump the first hurdle - that of the basic skill set to do the job - then no matter how great you are, you won't get the job. A CV/Resume can't take a hospital janitor and make them a heart surgeon!

However, let's assume you have the basic skill set, then getting a third party to position your application against the required ideal person to fulfil the job will create better results. That's partly because its a sales and marketing task, and most find it difficult to sell themselves; and secondly because having jumped through a few such processes before, a CV/Resume writer can better understand what the employer is looking for and meet that hurdle with ease - and add a few "unwritten" requirements as well, with added polish. According to the PARW (Professional Association of Resume Writers), a good professionally written CV/Resume results in 750% more interviews and 79% higher salary offers than those people write themselves.

The key to the initial stages of successful application process - getting the interview - is always firstly defined by meeting the minimum job skills requirement. Once you meet that, focusing your skills and personality/approach against those required by the employer are where the sales and marketing task comes in. When 7/10 applications will end up in the waste bin, most often the focused Cover Letter and the first half page of your CV/Resume will determine of you get a phone call for an initial chat.

There are many internet based resources to do this for you, but the difference a professional CV/Resume writer will bring are shown statistically in getting to interview - after that, its up to you! If in doubt, and you really want a job - employ a professional; that's always what the employer is trying to do.

Good Luck!

Would you put a link to one of your online profiles on your CV/Resume?

Ben asks: Would you put a link to one of your online professional profiles (eg - LinkedIn), on your CV/Resume? If so how would you do it, if not why not?

In answer:
There are hundreds if not thousands of things to put in your CV/Resume before links to off paper items.

The purpose of a CV/Resume is to get you the interview - period. Hence, once you have created enough interest and momentum for the potential employer to pick up the phone for a chat, THEN and only then is it worth to you adding additional elements like your LinkedIn profile to the discussion to further substantiate claims in a CV/Resume that you take issues like professional development, knowledge and networking seriously, and can show that with real evidence that makes a positive difference.

A LinkedIn profile is not a CV/Resume - it is a professional career summary at best focused on networking with like minded people, and not an initial document to get you an interview.

Here's a thought - what happens if you do make space to put it in? You probably have to leave something else out or use a smaller font. If you leave it out, and focus on answering the "get the interview" skills questions, and hence your CV/Resume makes it past the paper shift - then if they are a member of LinkedIn, they can easily find you, right? Then and only then does it add value.

It is your decision at the end of the day, because its your job application - but the balance of opinion professionally at present is no!

Good Luck!

Discrimination or restriction? Five years experience actually required to apply for a job?

Jenny asks: OK, call me a pessimist if you will but a manager position with 5 years experience doing X? I don’t understand – help me understand. I have a couple of friends that have been looking for positions and keep bouncing up against the “…at least 5 years experience….for manager (supervisor of others)…” Is this a way to keep cost down? Are they really looking to hire someone with 5 years experience? If you expect managerial excellence can that be obtained with 5 years experience? I am sorry for the repeat but I can’t get that number out of my head. Let me give it some context. A manager position, senior to project managers with anywhere from 1 to 15 years work experience; not only managing but accountable for results, “…develop and execute strategies, driving analysis and facilitation of well defined requirements as part of product development process, in support of strategic methodology. The Manager will also provide alignment and integration across multiple disciplines (Product Development, Merchants, Product Engineering, TRU Asia …) …” Seriously? 5 years experience? Does anyone else find this strange? Just from a salary perspective, I can see where a 5 year experience base would be preferable to a 15 to 20 year base but do they really expect to attain the results that the position description is requiring? Please, don’t get me wrong, I am NOT belittling anyone’s experience or experience level. I just think that expectations are unrealistic for the required experience level. In my very humble personal experience, I do not think that a 5 year experience base is ENOUGH experience to accomplish and excel at the above requirements of the position. I think it is a salary play. At 5 years experience, I sure thought I had enough and could excel but looking back, there was so much I had not experienced and did not know it could have been career crippling to have had that much responsibility at that early a time frame.

In answer:
I can hear your frustration and I tend to be sympathetic. But this "experience" criteria is being wiped away, particularly in the European Union and now in many other countries, by discriminatory legislation - ie: if you want that amount of experience, the employer has to justify why

Hence there is a slow but rapidly gathering pace by employers away from citing years of experience for positions (where you could get sued for discrimination), and a corresponding move to define the competencies and standards that are needed. The other driver behind this from Governments allowing the legislation through is the falling birth rate, so getting young people through the system quicker is a way of filling the people gaps.

There are certain skills and trades where either without X amount of experience you can not gain the necessary qualifications to undertake that skill; or the company would not get Health and Safety approval to undertake it. In the EU now, these are the only criteria under which sugest "years of experience" criteria can be used in selection.

Previously in the EU countries, and still in many parts of the world, employers asked for a certain number of years of experience as part of the qualifications for a job is designed to insure that an applicant has a certain level of experience that matches what the job requires. The problem is that most hiring managers and HR folks are not real adept at estimating this.

It is not their fault, however. Years of experience do NOT equal competency, no matter how you slice it. Some individuals will pack an immense amount of excellent experience into that five years and someone else will simply pick up a paycheck during the same period.

Here's a thought: if you think you can do the job, and have the necessary and stated qualifications BUT NOT the required years of experience, apply anyway. What have you or your friends got to lose - at minimum you won't get a job you don't have, and at maximum you will get a job you could have been excluded from. Most likely, you will get a job offer as a trainee or direct report to the position, and an agreed training scheme to get the job you applied for.

Good Luck!

The five point "why was I rejected" job application test

Are you getting a bit confused as to why you are continually rejected in your job applications?

Do the words “Thank you for your application for the post of…..” now strike a dark cloud across your entire world, let alone the day?

Are you feeling very rejected and upset, and wondering what you can do to change this?

Well, here’s a little and free five point test to understand why:

1. Print out the first page of your CV/Resume – no need for the rest of it
2. Fold it in half along the long side of the A4 sheet of paper. Now tear it in half, so you have two separate pieces of paper for the top and bottom halves
3. Take the advert for the job you are applying for, and using a highlighter pen mark out the key skill requirements – no more than five, if in doubt the first five they list
4. Take the top half of the first page of your CV/Resume (much like the rest of it – no need for the bottom half) and using the advert as a template, find the same five skills in the top half page of your CV/Resume
5. Now see if you can find your name, telephone number and eMail address on the same marked top half

Hint: if you can’t find the skill requirements from the advert, and can’t find your contact details – then that’s why you are being rejected! The fact you also have a cover letter which doesn’t address these points may mean even that half sheet of paper is never seen by anything more than a temp secretary tasked with reviewing a whole pile of similar applicants, to “find those who meet the job’s basic criteria.” Even if the review process is undertaken by me/any other recruiter or a professional HR manager, then if it doesn't pass that test in our minds - rejected.

When as a professional recruiter I point this out to people, they ask why? They think that the more effort they put into page2, highlighting how skilled they are, will always get them the job. NO – sorry! The person who placed the advert has spent at least 50 times as much time completing the process to the point where the advert was published, and a CV/Resume is only there to get you a job interview – no more, no less. It simply answers the questions:

A. Do you have the basic job description skills requirements? Hence the above test – if not, why read the rest of it…..
B. If you do meet the basic job description requirements, then is there something more to make you part of our team?

Think I am being a bit too tough here? There's an old adage from Madison Avenue which pretty much sums this up:

"If I see the world through John Smith's eyes, I can sell John Smith what John Smith buys."

So, next time BEFORE you write an application out for a job – apply the above test, and reduce the number of “Thank you for your application for the post of…..” letters and dark days of unemployment. You are good enough to do the job, you now know how to get the interview for it to prove that!

Good Luck!

Lying on your CV/Resume - is it illegal?

John asks: 1) is it illegal or merely unethical to lie on your resume? (2) Is it an absolute grounds for firing or is does the lie have to be related to the job (e.g. pretend you lied about which high school you attended) (3) Does an employer have to pay the person for the time worked, or is a lie enough for an employer to refuse compensation? Or does it depend on how big the lie was?

In answer:
(1) No, it is not illegal - but its highly unethical, and very stupid considering most corporates now use checking services. Plus, if you attach it to an Application Form, and sign the form - then its illegal, and grounds for firing at any point throughout your working for that company. Hence why all companies use an Application Form to make the act of lying illegal

2) See the answer to (1) above. Best practise would also suggest that you should also investigate the person that hired them: because if the lie was important enough to fire the employee, then it should have been important enough to check before the person was hired.

3) Generally, you have to pay them - although check local law first. As the employer has been duped as much as the employee has lied, most will not seek recompense as long as the employee leaves quickly and quietly!

The Group Interview - Multiple Interviewers, One Candiate, One Room

Sabine asks: I'm wondering why some employers choose to do group interviews with candidates instead of 1-1's. Is it a matter of efficiency or is there another impetus for conducting an interview in this format? I recently had one where I sat with 3 interviewers at the same time, I wasn't expecting it - it didn't turn out be a problem for me but I could see how it could be a really intimidating experience. So just wondering if anyone had thoughts about why a company might be inclined to go this way - and what advice would you have for candidates walking into this situation.

In answer:
This type of interview is performed to exert pressure on the candidate, to put them into a situation that they were unlikely to anticipate and see how they perform. It also allows more than one pair of eyes to see a candidates capabilities - difficult for one interviewer to achieve wholly.

Essentially it's an old lawyer trick, the ol' wall of flesh. It's designed to intimidate or test the applicant's ability to deal with interviewer responses from different perspectives. It's a good technique to test the composure of an applicant, especially if they are going to have to work with a range of people crossing business, technical and management lines.

Employers like it because it breaks down the scripted response process that many candidates try to get to work from. It lets employers see the real person: flustered? frozen? relaxed? It implies the last person they want to employ is a candidate who cannot comprehend change and isn't able to think on their feet.

Most commonly employed in academic settings, they are also employed commercially when a post holder will report to a large number of stakeholders who will want to see how you fit into the department/team and what you bring with you. They also don't want to have to ask the same set of common questions over and over again, so it saves time for the interviewers and the candidate. With different interviewers involved in the interview process it is easier to ascertain the validity of the skills, team work attitude, competences, knowledge, experience and attitude of a prospective job applicant to fulfil satisfactorily the professional profile required for the open job position.

The panel is made up of three or more briefed/agendaised interviewers: A handles behavioral issues, B handles technical issues and C resolves the differences between the two and gives the deciding vote or opinion. Candidates should always recognize the chairperson or senior of the team and address him/her as the interviewer. Rest should not be ignored, but answered well. Ignoring the chairperson / senior person guarantees rejection.

My advice when faced with this is to remember that only one interviewer will be questioning you at one time, so direct your response to that person and ignore everyone else in the room. (If you get more than one interviewer asking you questions at the same time then that tells you something about the organisation.) Also, take your time to judge the character of each interviewer: what areas concern them in their questions?

Good Luck!