A Look at Unemployment from the Other Side of the Résumé

I don’t remember what I was searching for the other day on the Internet, but I came across an article from Workforce Management, a magazine I once (when I had a job) relied on for source material. The pub is written for HR folk, and I thought a few of the remarks quoted in the article might be of interest to Lull’s unemployed readers.

The second graf frames the seriousness of our situation:
“The most conservative official estimates indicate that 15 million unemployed workers are now chasing 2.5 million jobs [sic] openings. A more realistic estimate would show that there are 10 unemployed workers for every open job.” The boldface emphasis is mine.

Note that this does not say there are 10 unemployed people applying for each job. No, no, no! There are 10 people for each job opening. This does not take into account anyone’s match for the job, nor does it represent how many actual candidates apply for the job.

According to John Younger, CEO of recruiting firm Accolo, “The average number of applicants across the board, including applicants for executive positions, is more than 200 per job. In the first hour that we looked to fill an executive assistant position, we received 500 applications and shut down the search.”

500? You can hardly blame them for shutting down the search. But the more frustrating number reported here is 1. Our window of opportunity to be considered for some jobs is ONE HOUR. This means that we need to be sitting at our computers at just the right moment, viewing just the right job board in just the right category and be able to write a customized cover letter on the spot.

What’s worse, though, is that Younger continues with this tidbit:
“A lot of companies are afraid to use broad distributions, so they don’t even post jobs and go only to one networking site—for example, the hiring manager’s alumni association.”

Again, this is perfectly understandable from where the hiring manager sits, but it further narrows the opportunity for applicants. I recently applied for a job that I found out later from an insider was probably already promised to someone before the job ad even got posted. The ad was merely a formality.

This is what we’re up against, my friends. But the worst? Younger says employed candidates are preferable to unemployed ones. In fact, he says, “[S]ome employers are vehemently opposed to hiring anyone who is unemployed … .”

Well, isn’t that peachy?

Granted, this is not an investigative report; I’ve given you only one perspective from one publication. But I think it’s worth knowing, if only to use the next time someone asks you what’s taking so long for you to land a job.

On one hand, this information can make us feel hopeless. But on the other, it can give us the courage to go out on a limb—to try unusual tactics, to apply for positions we’re not perfectly qualified for, to not try so hard to write whatever it is we think some HR person is looking for. Our chances of winning a job are about as good as winning the lottery. The important thing is to stay in the game.

In Which Lill Reminds Managers of Their Humanity

This week my sister applied for a marketing position at an upscale food market. She spent a great deal of time customizing her cover letter and résumé because she was genuinely excited about the job. She WANTED the job. She NEEDED the job.

She hand-delivered her bid for the position to the manager of the market. And he personally accepted her envelope. It's unusual for managers and HR folk to meet candidates in person at this stage of the hiring process. So he gets points for showing his face.

But his face was hardly welcoming. Never cracking a smile, he warned my sister that he's received more than 100 applications already (a few more than the 6 the press tells us about) and he'd only be contacting the cream of the crop.

I'm sure what he said is true. And perhaps he meant well. But with a dour disposition, he dashed every hope my sister had for the job. He could have conveyed the same information with a smile and a caring tone in his voice.

Dear Managers and HR professionals,

Who made you the Royal Guard of the company? Who said you have to maintain a poker face and act like a bloody robot to protect the company? Who do you think IS the company?

It's the people, of which you are one.

Job candidates aren't the enemy; employees aren't the enemy. So why treat them as if they are?

Obviously you know what the job market is like. You're the one who has to sift through hundreds of résumés. Now imagine, for a moment, what it's like to be the person represented by said résumé. Imagine a person whose unemployment benefits have run out, a person who is relying on the kindness of friends for shelter, a person who still has financial obligations and no way to meet them.

Or forget the hard-luck scenario. Just see people as people. Your first goal is to Do No Harm, regardless of how you may feel.

Respectfully,
Lill

I can say this because it used to be my job to advise managers and HR folk on how to communicate and behave with employees and colleagues in the workplace. I can say this because I used to be a manager and I understand the difficulties of the role.

So I hereby decree that anyone involved in the hiring process of an organization take a deep breath and summon a little warmth into their "game face." It's not an indicator of the job candidate's chances. But it does make you a better ambassador for your organization. And a better member of society.

Rage Against the Machine

Employees at many (most?) companies consider the HR people "them" or "other." The reasons vary, some undeserved. But earlier this week I got a full dose of the mayhem an HR department can cause.

I was doing what unemployed people do with their time: applying for a job online. Here's how the madness unfolded.


Eureka!
I found the job late Saturday. It seemed like one I was qualified for, so I started researching the company.

The company was fairly large (room for career movement), produced goods I wouldn't mind being affiliated with (nonfiction books), and was headquartered in an historic town (a picturesque relief from my current situation). All good.

Only one problem: There was a deadline for applying. I had until midnight to get my cover letter and résumé put together.


Deadline Looming
I wrote the cover letter and proceeded to fill out the online application. At the top of the app., some fields were asterisked in red and a note explained that red indicated you were required to complete those fields. Looked at another way, the fields not asterisked in red were optional.

So I skipped filling in the work history beyond the 12 years at my last job and at 11:45 pm, all I had left to do was attach my cover letter and résumé. The app. software allowed me to choose any one file but not actually attach it. When I chose my second file, it seemed to replace the first one. Then the program wouldn't allow me to delete the file and start over.


Deadline Hits
At midnight, I decided to write a note about the difficulty—explaining I would try to find a workaround—and hit "Submit" just to get the app. in by the deadline. Then I e-mailed the company that created the software and searched the Web for someone outside the HR department at the publishing house to send my files to.

Surprisingly, I reached a live person at the software company around 2 am. We volleyed e-mails for a bit, but to no avail. At 5 am I finally went to bed, no closer to a solution than I was 5 hours before.


Monday, Monday…
Can't Trust that Day
Though I wanted to call the publishing house first thing in the morning, I was due in court as a witness AND, more to the point, my cellphone service sucks. I couldn't risk a dropped call while I was asking for a favor.

So I called in the afternoon and the very polite receptionist said she'd talk to HR on my behalf. She called back moments later to relay the following information from "them":
1. They received my application at 12:15, so it was too late.
2. I submitted an incomplete application.
(Remember all the fields I said weren't marked "required"?)
3. But they'll allow me to submit a second application.
(How? They'd already taken down the listing from all the job boards.)
4. They accept only Word docs.
(Not the file types listed on the actual application: .pdf, .txt, .rtf, and .doc.)

Did they think I would just slink away? Give up? Little did they know that all the bullying life's thrown my way this year has given me a new kind of determination. All I'd wanted was an e-mail address I could send a couple of files to. But I'd do it their way.

So I found a way to open a generic application on the publisher's Web site and I answered every bloody question—even if all I wrote was "NA" or "I don't know." I wrote a note about it being my second attempt, then realized what time it was.

Drat! It was 5 minutes before I was supposed to meet a friend. I called him to say I'd be late, but all I had to do was press a few buttons and I'd be done.

But as soon as I hung up from my friend, I hit the button and…the Big Nothing AGAIN. I ended up copying and pasting my files into the little box I'd used to write notes. I had no time to review or proofread anything, which is a shame because so much can go awry when moving text from one software program to another. I shudder to think what my letter and résumé looked like to the readers at the other end.


On behalf of job-seekers everywhere, I have a message for HR people:
You should choose technology that says and does exactly what you expect. Want a Word file? Then the app. shouldn't say it accepts four different types of files. Want every field completed? Then say so. If the software provider can't customize it properly for you, then find someone else who can. Don't ignore the defaults of the system. They can give false impressions to candidates, wasting your time and theirs.

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Thankfully, I know an HR department isn't necessarily a reflection of the company for which it toils. And I know the HR department isn't responsible for the programming. But still. HR bought the program, didn't it? Did anyone bother testing it? Is it not compatible with Macs? Why wouldn't it upload my files?!

Maybe it's just my karma kicking in. But if what goes around really does come around, then whoever signed off on that application may find themselves eliminated from Santa's Good List.

Oh, you better watch out…

Ouch!: HR Takes a Hit on the Evening News

I just watched a segment on the news about unemployment. It caught my ear. Then it depressed me enough to retreat to my new uninformed self. Here's why.

An older distinguished-looking fellow, who has been out of work for a year, told the reporter two job-hunting anecdotes while standing in line at a job fair. He said that at another job fair, he took the required "IQ test" of an employer and scored 99 out of 100. The recruiter told him he was too smart for the position and hired the fellow behind him—who scored around a 75 out of 100. Then he recounted an interview with another recruiter who told him her company had "enough colored people" there now. He told her that what she was saying was illegal and he could report her comments to someone of higher authority. She said he'd have to prove she said it.

And don't you start thinking this little episode took place in the land that time forgot. No sirree. New York City was the setting.

It's hard enough to fight the competition for a job. But when you're fighting stupidity and discrimination and cruelty as well—from the very people who hold the key to your future—you begin to wonder whether staying in the fight is worthwhile.

Rare Sighting in Job Ad

While searching job boards yesterday, I happened upon a position I was both interested in and equipped with the skills to do. Then I noticed this: "Salary: Under $30,000."

Well, Glory Be and Hallelujah! At last an employer bold enough to state upfront that it has determined the value of the position. I may write just to say "Thank you."

Why? Because I didn't have to play that dreadful game of naming a desired salary that I could live with and that the employer might agree to. I didn't waste time sweating over the perfect cover letter for a job that wasn't going to pay me enough, and HR folks didn't waste their time reading it.

Don't get me wrong: $30,000 can go a long way in some parts of the world. But not in New York City. And that salary can be fine for someone who's just beginning a career, or for someone who doesn't really need the money—neither of which describes me.

So I'm grateful to cut to the chase. Sure, I can hear some HR consultants warn that by publishing a salary range, employers may be missing out on some stellar candidates with whom they could have negotiated. And in a different economy, I would agree. But right now, HR departments are barraged with résumés. Anything that can narrow the choices is probably appreciated by HR staffers.

I know I'm grateful for the honesty.

Need A Layoff Chuckle?

Recently communications consultant Steve Crescenzo offered some tongue-in-cheek advice to a job-seeker (and mutual friend) on his blog, Corporate Hallucinations. Look for the July 23rd article: "Some job interview advice for a friend."

A Note for HR Folks and Their Suppliers

Hunting for a job is a daunting task for me. I'm squeamish about self-promotion and absolutely refuse to "fudge" about any skills I have or wish I had. I don't submit my résumé to you unless I'm certain I can succeed at the position you are advertising.

And that's where things get iffy.

The Job Board

My hunt takes place exclusively online. I visit a number of aggregate sites that pull in ads from a variety of job boards, so I'm familiar with a variety of formats. Some are inadequate for an HR specialist to properly list an opening; few allow for creativity in the description. The immediate workaround is a link to the more desirable listing on the advertising organization's Web site. Beyond this, I would encourage job boards to survey their users—both employers and prospective employees—to continue to improve the sites.

But job boards are the least of my problems with job-hunting. 

The Ad

The first obstacle to my quest is the person (or committee) who wrote the ad.  Kudos to the folks who understand the difference between "preferred," "desired," and "required"—and actually include this language in their job ads. And kudos to the folks who can put one word in front of another and have them make sense. But a pox on the rest of you. 

I've seen ads for positions that carried the title I'm qualified for, but described tasks in such jargon-laden language that I had no idea what I would be expected to do. I've also seen ads that didn't use jargon but still failed to make sense. I know that job-seekers apply to your ads in spite of these shortcomings. But don't take that as evidence that your ads work. It's merely evidence that some people are desperate enough for work that they'll take a stab at any opening, appropriate or not. 

I'm not interested in working with people who can't put a sentence together. Nor am I keen on working in an organization that depends on jargon to communicate. The sad truth is that in many cases, these bad ads don't reflect the culture or nature of the organization or department. They merely reflect the writing skills of the person (or committee) who put the ad together. Which means that you are likely screening out many qualified candidates who could have been a great fit for the position (me, for instance!).

The Process

The second obstacle to my quest for employment is the application procedure. I realize that automating this part of the hiring process is a boon for HR departments and a nice revenue stream for suppliers of the software. But when was the last time you asked job-seekers for feedback on your application procedure? 

I understand that asking 20 essay questions weeds out the tire-kickers. Here's what I don't understand:

• Multiple-choice questions that don't provide a space for additional comments. I find that in many cases, my answer is not among the list. I could randomly select an answer, but that would be a lie. And at the end of every application I've seen so far, I'm not supposed to press "Submit" unless I verify that everything is true. I could leave the question blank, but then I couldn't even move on to the next screen because the software requires an answer to every question. So please leave a space in which I may provide an explanation.

• No way to "Save" my responses. Some programs allow this, others don't. Think about this for a moment. During the course of the one or two hours it can take to complete an application, any number of things can go wrong—a power outage, an Internet disconnection or timeout, an interruption or personal emergency, a mistakenly pressed button or key. Without a Save feature, all the work prior to these calamities is lost. I realize this has no direct impact on you, but it does show your lack of regard for the job-seeker.

• No overview. Most of the software is structured so that every question has to be answered on one screen before being allowed to continue to the next screen. How many screens are there? How long will this take? I know I can put in bogus answers just to go from screen to screen and then edit every answer afterwards. But what a waste of precious time! Why not present a screen that shows the entire application? Then I can work on the questions offline and submit thoughtful, informed answers later.

I could go on. But I'm wondering how enlightened some HR people are. Here are a few Web sites and blogs to enrich your career:

Bob Sutton—Work Matters

Dr. John Sullivan & Associates

Evil HR Lady

Fistful of Talent

Jessica Lee Writes

Punk Rock HR

The HR Capitalist

Your Hr Guy .com—HR for the Masses

It's time for me to get back to those essay questions.