Receive daily articles & headlines each day in your inbox with your free ERE Daily Subscription.

Not logged in. [log in or register]

Recruiting’s Dirty Little Secrets — What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You

by Dec 26, 2011, 3:16 am ET

Two of the hottest topics in corporate recruiting today are the candidate experience and need for transparency. And although many corporations are making a sincere effort to improve that candidate experience, they often pay only lip service to becoming more open, honest, and transparent. No corporate leader that I know directly lies to applicants.

However, if you consider omitting information that could directly help the applicant successfully understand the process or land a job to be a lie, then there are quite a few areas where corporations are omitting the complete truth.

I call them “dirty little secrets” because insiders are well aware of them, while most applicants and business reporters are not. If you are a recruiter, you may find that this list includes over-generalizations, but in my experience, the problems in this list are certainly not unusual. My recommendation is that corporate leaders need to identify the areas where there is a distinct lack of openness, candor, and authenticity in the recruiting process and instead to proactively provide that information to applicants.

Recruiting Dirty Little Secrets

Here are a dozen areas where corporate recruiting could improve.

  • The corporate black hole — because of recruiter overload, the volume of applicants, and technology problems, a resume submitted to a corporate career site may actually have a zero probability of being reviewed. In the industry, it can be referred to as “the black hole.”
  • Looking for an excuse to drop you — there are books written about the need to focus on the positive aspects of individuals, but the entire screening process is often focused on finding a single error or lack of “fit” to quickly eliminate any applicant. If you are categorized as a job-jumper, you are unemployed, you have bad credit or Klout scores, you live in a distant zip code, or they find weird things on Facebook about you, you will be immediately rejected without knowing why. As a result, those who fail to make a single mistake during the process, rather than those who are the best, are the ones that are most likely to get hired.
  • The rejection letter is designed to avoid complaints, not accuracy – if you actually get a rejection letter or e-mail, you should be aware that canned phrases like “we decided to move in another direction” or “there were other more qualified candidates” are pretested or lawyer-approved phrases that are designed to quiet you and keep you from making a follow-up inquiry. In many cases, the person sending the letter won’t even know the actual reason for your rejection.
  • The interview process will likely be disjointed – applicants invited in for interviews routinely complain about disorganized interviewing, death by interview (having to go through 10 or more interviews), continually getting the same repeat questions from different interviewers, and having to return multiple times on different days. If the process seems poorly managed and disjointed, it is probably because it usually is. The overall corporate interview process is more often more whimsical than scientific and integrated.
  • Some jobs are not really available to outsiders — although legal requirements may require an organization to post all open jobs, in some cases, the hiring manager has already predetermined that they will hire internally. There is no way for an external applicant to know when a job is “wired,” so applying can only lead to frustration and you will never know that you did nothing wrong.
  • Some companies are blocked — if you work at a company covered by an informal “non-poaching” arrangement where two firms agree not to hire from each other, your chances of getting hired are near zero. Even though these agreements are illegal, they are secret, so your application will never be considered and you will never know why.
  • Recruiters won’t know if you are a customer – you might think that being a loyal customer might help your application, but most corporations have no formal way of identifying an applicant as a customer.
  • We will keep your resume on file (but we will never look at it again) – is certainly true that when they tell you that your rejected application will be “kept on file” it will be. However, it will be kept almost exclusively for legal reasons. The odds of a recruiter scanning through a corporate database of thousands of names in order to revisit a resume that has previously been rejected are miniscule. Unless a recruiter remembers you by name, assume that your resume has been dropped into the “black hole.”
  • You will never know the real odds – although corporations regularly calculate the percentage of all applicants that are hired, you will never find that number on the corporate website. Although the lotto is required to publish your odds of winning, corporations keep it a secret. For some jobs, the odds are well over 1,000 to 1.
  • Technology may eliminate you — and most large organizations, resumes are initially screened electronically. Unfortunately, if the software is not fine-tuned, the recruiter is not well-trained, or if you fail to use the appropriate keywords and phrases, no human will ever see your resume. In one test, only 12% of specially written “perfect resumes” made it through this initial step, although in theory, 100% should have made it.
  • Busy people are forced to take shortcuts — during a down economy, the volume of qualified applicants can force recruiters and hiring managers to take shortcuts. For example, recently a coordinator asked the recruiter which one of a handful of resumes should be invited in for an interview. The response was “I don’t have time to look at them; just flip a coin and pick them.” Hiring managers are also known to make choices based on snap judgments or stereotypes that add a degree of randomness to getting a job.
  • Don’t call us, we’ll call you — if an applicant is rejected at any stage, there is no formal process to help you understand where you need to improve in order to be successful when applying for a job in the future. Unlike in customer service, there is no 1 -800 number to call, and because of weak corporate documentation, recruiting might not actually know (beyond a broad reason) why you are rejected and how you could improve your chances.

Final Thoughts

Almost without exception, corporate recruiters are hard-working and ethical people. But most are too overworked to be able to take a step back and to formally assess where the recruiting process could be more open, honest, and transparent. Unfortunately, most of the current “candidate experience” efforts that I have seen are focused more on increasing courtesy and politeness rather than being significantly more open, honest, and transparent. If you would like to add to this list of “secrets,” add them to the comments section immediately following this article on www.ere.net.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to offer specific legal advice. You should consult your legal counsel regarding any threatened or pending litigation.

  • http://magicsourcer.wordpress.com Sarang Brahme

    John:

    These are the normal issues in corporate recruitment – especially in what we call “number’s game” AKA volume recruitment. The entire process and candidate experience gets hampered due to high volumes and pressure.

    What are the solutions we are talking about? Black Hole is a classic example to this.

    Any views anyone around solutions?

  • Pingback: Let’s start with big cup bubbles in 2012 | Marcom HRsay

  • http://recruitingin3d@wordpress.com Peter Radloff

    John,

    I appreciate you having an understanding of how busy it is on the corporate side and how much we can all be overworked. That said, some of what you have on here is slightly wrong or just lacks the perception of what it is really like out there for us today. Respectfully, here are my rebuttals so some key points:

    *The corporate black hole
    When companies start putting as much salary and headcount behind recruiting as they do sales, then we can avoid the blackhole. Companies also can make better use of recruiting coordinators (trained ones) or Interns (see: coordinators) to screen through at a high level the resumes that do not make sense. IE the 7-11 clerk who applies for the VP of Financial Analysis. While we’re still getting tagged with fancy titles of Talent Acquisition (makes me feel like a stock trader), and getting buried under HR, we’ll get nowhere.

    * Looking for an excuse to drop you
    Only crappy recruiters do this. Many of us try to screen in, unless the person does something so bad that we have to just walk way. PS – candidates, proof read your resume, so that it looks like you actually DID graduate college.

    *The rejection letter is designed to avoid complaints

    John, I take most offense with this one. We’re still talking about America, right? Where a moronic woman spilled hot coffee on herself at a McDonalds, and some backwards judge awarded her millions? So yes, we do all we have to to avoid some frivolous law suit where someone is just trying to cash in. We live in way too litigious a society to NOT be cautious there. I’ve personally tried in the past (in my younger recruiting days) to be up front and honest with candidates, and they either go over your head, or file a complaint. So that is why all my rejections and a vast amount of candidate communications are via email. They stand up in court.

    Don’t call us, we’ll call you
    John, I am not a career counselor. I am paid to find the right people for this job. I do not work at a non profit for career advancement. That said, Ive had conversations with candidates and situations where I’ve helped people with a resume or some other advice – ON MY OWN TIME. Because, realistically, I don’t have a job anymore if I’m counseling and not recruiting.

    I’d like to follow up on this in more detail on my blog, as yours is not the first instance of this I’ve seen. And I most certainly agree that we need to enhance candidate experience, but in the same vein, we cannot handhold everyone. Regardless of team size, it will always be near impossible to give 1:1 treatment to all candidates.

    Thanks for a wonderfully stimulating piece.

  • Stephen Shearman

    Sarang,
    To your ‘any views around a solution?’: we could go on for days giving examples of poor candidate experience. To me, finding solution to the candidate experience rests on economics. Prove the relationship between candidate experience and customer behavior and how this impacts an organization’s bottom line. Sure, a few nimble orgs have invested time and money into improving their candidate experience on altruistic motives only (and good for them). But for some reason (probably because of it’s obvious and strong relationship to the bottom line) customer experience has high priority in most orgs but candidate experience does not have the same visibility or concern (maybe for the same reason employees are not valued like technology or markets. Human capital and HR are all too often not tied directly to profits and P&L’s). Show me an academic/scientific study validating the candidate experience effects customer behavior and its impact and we might have a business case / argument to get resources/money to improve the candidate experience.
    Thanks.

  • Keith Halperin

    Thanks, Dr. Sullivan.
    From now on, when anybody discusses “poor candidate experience” on ERE- I’m just going to put:
    “Hire $3.00/hr virtual candidate care reps.”
    On to “dirty little secrets”:

    1) For non-employers of choice:
    If you aren’t “the Fabulous 5%”- you don’t count.

    2)For employers of choice:
    If you aren’t “the politically-connected-to-someone- important-in-the-company Fabulous 5%”- you don’t count.

    3) Qualified people can be anonymously blackballed from a given company.

    4) For many start-ups and employers of choice, diversity means: “We hire all types of young, usually white, upper middle class people, just like us!” For many start-ups founded by immigrants, diversity means: “We hire all types of young people from our ethnic or cultural background, just like us!”

    5) A very large number of hires are based on the (often unconscious) greed, arrogance, fear, and ignorance/incompetence (GAFI Principles) of the people involved in both the actual hiring and the creation/implementation of the hiring process.

    Happy Holidays,

    Keith

  • Pingback: In Case You Thought You Didn’t Need to Network….

  • Alan Fluhrer

    Mr Keith,

    Always enjoy your opinion, and I agree. The Fear Factor is a big one. Fear on many levels within companies.

  • http://community.ere.net/blogs/the-careerxroads-annex/ Gerry Crispin

    Despite the apologists who can describe in detail the need to cloud many of the issues John lists, none of the reasons to maintain these anachronistic practices hold up…and the solutions are often simple. The hard part is simply doing it.

    The long-term shift however is to demonstrate that treating candidates (thats everyone who expresses an interest and clicks the apply button)as adults does, in fact, contribute to an increase in the quality of the applicant pool…and that the reward outweighs the perceived downside risk.

    IMHO we should be acknowledging the firms who are doing more (not necessarily all…yet) to address the list John has created and measure the result.

    In October, at the HRTechnology Conference, 23 firms were honored for their efforts to improve the candidate experience. To win, their claims had to be confirmed by their candidates- and these firms managed to get 11,500 candidates to complete detailed surveys (most of these candidates [805] were not hires but had simply applied and had not even been selected to be interviewed).

    You can see the names of the firms we honored here http://thecandidateexperienceawards.org/

    Maybe next year YOUR firm might be among those who wins.

    Two of the smaller firms who did win this year, Sage and RMS inc., will be interviewed at EREExpo in San Diego in March. Watch the session live or streaming and you’ll get why the few firms that are addressing this issue are making a difference for their companies.

    (Full disclosure: Elaine Orler, Ed Newman, Mark McMillan and I created a non-profit to uncover, assess and give more visibility to firms that are changing the game when it comes to candidate experience. We are expanding the awards in 2012)

  • http://www.talentsynchronicity.com Susan Burns

    John,
    I appreciate your straight forward, relevant observations of the recruiting environment and experience.  The fact that we haven’t seen significant improvements in the “state of recruitment” for over a decade continues to amaze.  While some companies certainly have made progress far too few have moved the needle. It’s the same story in good economic times as well as during weak economic cycles.  The main difference is that there is more money to throw at solutions during the good cycles.  But, the real question is why? Why have we seen such little change?  As more $ are invested in technology, talent management and channels the core, foundational issues persist.  I’m not suggesting it’s easy.  On the contrary, any time business addresses people issues the dynamics are far more complex then when addressing product, process, technology, marketing…… At the same time, concerns abound across businesses and up through the C-suite around Talent – can we get the skills and experiences we need? Can we keep the Talent we have that is critical to our long-term performance?   These two problems are not independent of one another and cannot be solved without addressing the bulk of your callouts.  If companies are serious about solving these critical issues they will begin asking the right questions of their Talent organizations; recognize the interdependencies across the Talent organization and between the Talent organization and the Organiztional directives; clarify goals and expectations for the candidate experience to protect the future of the Organization; and, do the hard work of effectively structuring / staffing their recruitment departments to deliver on it.

  • http://www.talentsynchronicity.com Susan Burns

    Btw – I should also share that these are the same problems that drew me in to talent acquisition 13 years ago and keep me engaged and fired up today to make a difference. Cheers to all that 2012 can bring!

  • http://www.LandscapeCareerSearch.com Christine Kratcoski

    As an entrepreneur and as a tenured recruiter, I must always deliver on any agreement made with internal recruiters, hiring managers and owners, follow up as promised and within the timeline I set or they set, and guarantee candidates hired, even though I am not part of the hiring decision or part of the circumstances new hires face once hired.
    If internal recruiters, hiring managers and owners would honor a hiring process that is agreed upon prior to evaluating any candidates, this alone would create an efficient and productive experience for everyone involved.
    Yes, life happens while we make plans, work happen while we manage tasks at hand, but we must deliver that which we promise to deliver. Credibility isn’t just for senior management, it’s vital to all who are in business… And everyone we connect with in business, no matter who has the upper hand at the moment, deserves respect. Who knows who will have the upper hand in the years to
    come. Best not to burn bridges before they are even built. Recruiting is another networking process that should be managed well. So much is at stake for each individual.

  • http://fluidhire.com Ian Jones

    Hi John-

    In general, I believe in as much reasonable communication and transparency in the hiring process.

    To me the big challenge seems to be finding the balance between the ideal candidate experience, and what’s best for the each hiring entity.

    Questions that pop to mind include..

    - Does every candidate deserve an identical candidate experience? Does the no-cover letter spammer who doesn’t read the JD deserve the same service as the well researched candidate with some relevant skills who just misses the cutoff?

    - Is full transparency in the hiring process in the best interest of all parties? For a niche role, do I really want to tell a candidate that he/she is one of a very small group of viable candidates?

    - How far can/should recruiting go to help candidates “improve their chances”? Agencies do it all the time, but do we want corporate recruiters giving away the answers to the test?

    - Can a tangible business case be made for building a world class candidate experience effort? One where the long term impact on hiring and retention can be converted into bottom line impact for the business? If so, you’ll see employers invest in more corporate recruiting resources to deliver more high touch services.

  • Keith Halperin

    @Gerry:
    With the exception of things I might want to buy, I don’t put much stock in “Best of” lists/contests. Research shows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion) that people tend to fear loss more than they seek gain, so I’d like to repeat my earlier suggestion of also having a well-publicized and supported contest for the WORST candidate experience from major employers, for which they would NOT want to be nominated, as the nominees are not just the companies but the actual heads of staffing/recruiting at those companies. Being widely and publicly “outed” as overseeing some of the worst candidate care in the U.S among major employers could act as a strong incentive to either improve or leave such organizations. I expect this to occur sometime shortly after the criminal prosecution of the major “banksters’ who brought down the economy and cost millions of Americans their jobs, homes, and faith in the American dream, i.e., I won’t hold my breath, because in neither case have enough powerful people been hurt to go after those responsible. Am I equating sr. staffing heads who oversee without attempting to reform grossly user-unfriendly applicant and candidate-care systems with the recession-creating “banksters”? No. Am saying both types are responsible and should be held accountable for poorly treating large numbers of people through their acts of commission and omission? Yes.

    @Christine: I agree with you. ISTM that a great deal could be accomplished if successfully recruiting quality candidates on time, under/on budget, every time (without excuses) were a deliverable hiring managers were responsible for along with their others.

    @Ian: I like what you raised, and suggest the answers should be very similar if you substituted “customer” for “candidate,” “sales” for “recruiting,” and “sales reps” for “recruiters”.

    Cheers,

    Keith

  • Alan Fluhrer

    Keith,

    One thing not mentioned is the damage companies do to themselves, and their brand by providing terrible candidate experiences. I am sure you and I could talk for hours on this.

    Companies should realize that it is a small world and getting smaller. That candidates talk, and so do good recruiters, both internal and external, but for now we will stick with external.

    Following example is true more times than I care to tink about

    Calling candidate named John, having been referred to him for a client job we are recruiting for. John appears to have the right bakground, years of experience and character to be a good candidate for our client. On speaking with John, I find him very professional. When mentioning the client company, John replies, “you know, 2 of my friends interviewed there. They thought the job would be interesting and they were looking forward to moving forward”. Then John continues on that his friends got lost in the black hole of that company and never heard back from anyone, except the external recruiter who never got feedback either.

    This gives the company a negative brand by the candidate marketplace and makes it that much harder to hire the best. Then word gets out and employees at that company leave due to the residual cultural issues that derive from the same culture tat allows this type of candidate experience.
    And yes, unfortunately, this is the norm.
    C-Level executives, that do not want ‘yes’ men/women around them and are willing to listen to the truth, will find, that yes, talent is important. Perhaps the most important thing to their company. Getting it, keeping it, losing it, and what to do for each of these 3.
    The courageous executives WILL BE, the people that help their companies grow, flourish and be successful. The others will become sources of candidates.

  • Keith Halperin

    Thanks, Alan. You mention “damage companies do to themselves”:
    Seriously (occasionally I am) speaking- “What damage?”
    Will an SVP of an employer of choice get fired for not making certain 100,000 “Non-well-connected Fabulous 5%” aren’t treated with common courtesy? Will someone’s bonus be reduced? Will people not crawl over broken glass to work for these folks? If so, I’m not seeing it.

    You also mentioned “C-Level executives, that do not want ‘yes’ men/women around them and are willing to listen to the truth” Remember Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men”:
    Jessep (jack Nicholson): You want answers?
    Kaffee (Tom Cruise): I think I’m entitled to them.
    Jessep: You want answers?
    Kaffee: I want the truth!
    Jessep: You can’t handle the truth!

    The truth is that beneath a thin veneer (or pretense) or profit-maximizing rationality, most organizations are headed by fallible human beings who are (consciously or unconsciously) operating under what I’ve called the GAFI Principles of Greed Arrogance, Fear, and Ignorance/Incompetence. This means that often someone would rather be “right” or “in-charge” than “rich”, that “enough” is “never enough”, “it’s not just that I must win, but you must lose as well”, “I’ve got mine, now you get yours, until I want yours too”, “loyalty equals cash flow”, and “competition is fine until I can get and keep it all”… Then of course, there are the REAL SOBs to watch out for…

    Happy Holidays,

    Keith

  • Alan Fluhrer

    Keith,

    I have seen your GAFI a few times. And I do agree with it. It’s a shame

    To answer you: Do I think an SVP will shed tear 1, no.But, I will say that I have seen, more times than I care to say, that same SVP in jeopardy when, at the end of the year, he/she, has not made their numbers. AND, a good reason for that is they were penny wise and pound foolish. Letting top candidates go over a few $K, or a title, or something else they could have addressed if they really wanted.

    Now, seeing the SVP about to lose the candidate, well, now, we can find the $$$, or the title. But by then it’s too late. The candidate courting has failed, one side, or both, aren’t “feeling the love” anymore, and it falls apart.

    Then said candidate, with real business relationships, goes to competing company, brings his/her contacts, and hauls in a 10-20+ million project. No the first SVP hears of this, runs right over to HR/Recruiting, sometimes, and says, “how could you let this happen” I think this response may be in line with your GAFI. They lost something, now it’s quantifiable, and they want to blame someone else for it

  • Keith Halperin

    Thanks, Alan. I agree that many sr. folks can get in trouble for being shortsided with valuable candidates. Have any ever got in trouble for being short-sided with lots of potentially valuable or even non-valuable candidates?

    As for blame: as long as there are contract recruiters around, that can be (and usually is) easily taken care of.

    Cheers,

    KH

  • SHARAD CHANDRA

    Thanks,
    It was great reading the article, ir reflected the real picture,

    I am inspired and found the article, really great.

    Great learning for me.
    Thanks to all

    Happy New Year to all

    Regards
    Sharad chandra, Hyderabad, India

  • Pingback: My Wish For Talent Management and HR in 2012: Think Big, But Be Clear

  • Dominic Massaro

    Peter Radloff- you make some good comments but are way off on the McDonald’s coffee comment. Watch “Hot Coffee” on HBO. You like many other evening news watchers for their facts couldn’t be more wrong about this.

    The old woman almost died, the coffee was hotter than an human mouth or esophagus could even come close to touching. She wasn’t driving and the car was Parked. I will show you pictures just for safe measure.

  • http://recruitingin3d@wordpress.com Peter Radloff

    Thanks Dominic – I’ll certainly watch that. However, I will not award points for money hungry people who take advantage of any chance to make a cheap buck through a lawsuit. Furthermore, I won’t provide any sympathy for those who do not exercise common sense – coffee you get at take-out is ALWAYS hotter than it should be, and is rarely able to be drank in the 1st 5-7 minutes.

    But then again, common sense rarely proves to be common. We’re off topic, but thank you for the recommendation.

  • Keith Halperin

    @ Peter: How about points for “money hungry people who take advantage of any chance to make a cheap buck through laying off lots of workers and then earning handy bonuses for doing so”? aka “vulture capitalism”?

    Cheers,

    Keith

  • http://recruitingin3d@wordpress.com Peter Radloff

    @ Keith – I think that’s just as slimy. Find a cure for one, you can find a cure for both. See: common sense.

  • Keith Halperin

    Thanks Peter.
    “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”

    Albert Einstein

  • Pingback: Get off your ass and go network | Luke’s Circle

  • Pingback: 25 Ways That “No-recruit” Secret Agreements Can Damage Your Firm - ERE.net

  • Pingback: Pulling Back the Curtain on Corporate Hiring | Dice Resource Center

  • Kevin Burgess

    You’ve skipped over a few client, or non-HR based issues:
    In this current Recession, successor to the Great Recession, adult males over 50 are the largest contingent of available applicants now, followed closely by recent graduates of either sex.

    These categories have two distinctly different things going against them:
    1. Senior candidates have the experience, often too much: With younger managers, or managers without the deep but narrow niche technology knowledge, they most often do not come close to the expertise of available candidates.

    How is this a ‘bad’ thing? Well, would you want to hire someone who knows more than you do about your job, and will be able to threaten your opinions, or decisions, or even your job after a short period of integration?

    The simple answer is NO.

    For too long corporations have kept lower paid, and therefore likely less experienced middle managers. They’re younger than much of the experienced workforce, and therefore will choose the least capable candidates, just to keep their own jobs. In the long run that hurts their departments, and corporations as a whole.

    2. Recent graduates have very little real experience in their chosen field of endeavor.

    Why? Well, if you’re a company struggling through hard times do you really want to rest your multi-million dollar enterprise on the backs of employees who don’t know what they’re doing, are untested, and have even residual youthful ‘immortality’ complexes. By immortal complex I mean the tendency to assume they can do no wrong, and an immature inability to properly assess consequences or probably outcomes.

    Risk takers may do extremely well, but are more likely to fail. They will live on and learn from their mistakes. Your company or division may not fare as well.

    The former candidates have the opposite problem: They’re Risk Averse, and may avoid opportunities.

    Some managers will hire these candidates, so that they can train raw workers in their own image. That reenforces the ‘don’t rock the boat’ mentality I.E. “Yes men,” and limits creativity.

    Do they train up? Most do not. Not outside of that specific corporate niche, and leaves workers stuck in dead-end jobs which will evaporate as technology changes. In the high-churn fields of technology that wastes a lot of potential talent.

    Recruiters cannot overcome these hidden prejudices.

  • Melissa Nourigat

    As the Executive Admin who arranges the interviews I find the information a bit off, but could be true from your experience. I have not worked for “every” organization in the world. But, I have worked for really great ones and this has just not been my experience.

    During the hiring process, we screen resumes based on specific criteria. I have set up full day interview schedules with our teams who genuinely are looking for specific skill sets to fill very high level attributes that will fit with the team’s long term goals and objectives. We also interview tons of diverse candidates from a large data range. My last position at AMD we hired many engineers to work on a specific project, the people I have seen hired really did “fit” skill sets that were needed and I saw the long term outcome of their contributions, so I know that they were doing the work they were hired for.

    In other cases you may be right. While I have great experience and vetted in my own career, I have felt this sting of prejudice. I have been “laid off” not jumped around. There is a clear distinction in this situation.

    A former colleague preluded that corporations have a four year employment term when they start hammering on certain people. If you make it through the hammering you get to stay, if you don’t your fired. I’ve seen long time executives be dismissed for poor performance and then there is the excuses to send jobs overseas for cheaper labor costs.

    So, many variables to account for hiring in the humongous employment environment.

    I believe the way you present yourself foremost is paramount in maintain good rapport with hiring managers and recruiters. When you tell the recruiters you were laid off, they can verify this information and reduces the obvious short employment periods. Whose fault is that you don’t have psychic powers to know when a division is going to be sold because the company grew too fast without ROI (Agilent Technologies 2001 Wireless Network Solutions), and or, a bad economy is going to hit a certain industry after 1 year 2002, or the whole economy for that matter 2008? Why would a manger give you a recommendation if it were not true?

    Timing is not your job that is the cosmic universe. Your job is to keep working and showing active search participation even though you keep hitting hard spots. Having a good attitude and being transparent about your employment is imperative.

    If you’re a single mom, making a minimum wage or went into a slump from unemployment and your credit is less than stellar, but it was before you were laid off, then where is the justice for these people? SHAME on the recruiting industry and shame on companies not to give people the opportunity to better themselves. They did it once, they can do it again.

    No one will get along with everyone, but when you can get along with most people you are a keeper. I genuinely enjoy the teams I’ve worked with. I genuinely look forward to my future working with new teams as well.

    Just like children moving out of the nest, some of us grow out of the places we’ve been, to move to higher level opportunities because that’s what we are capable of achieving. It is not a bad thing to move people up the ladder, that’s how leaders get there. Success is moving up and forward in life.

  • Melissa Nourigat

    “Youth grows old with age and feels the sting of it’s own torn.” Melissa D. Nourigat

  • Melissa Nourigat

    “Youth grows old with age and feels the sting of it’s own thorn.” Melissa D. Nourigat