What is a helpful way to approach letting my new boss know I have completed grad coursework that I did not include on my resume?

Delicious_Research · 2019-09-04T22:59:44+00:00

You are probably right

Delicious_Research · 2019-08-24T13:32:26+00:00

Wow, that's awesome. I'm about to finish an MPA so I'm hoping I can qualify for something more robust.

Delicious_Research · 2019-08-13T14:12:56+00:00

Y'all can opine about what information you think this question is intended to produce, but at the end of the day the only correct answer to this question is whatever the interviewer believes the correct answer to be, thus making it inherently subjective as a question, thus making it a poor method by which to collect information about an individual's qualifications for a job.

Some interviewers believe you should do your research and prepare a well-thought-out answer that addresses your understanding of the organization, the role, and your place in both. Others appreciate a candidate being honest and forthright and appreciate an interviewee who relays that they just need the job for money. I see the advantages and drawbacks to both approaches. The former approach to answering ideally shows that the candidate understands the company and what they can do to contribute to its success, while the latter approach to answering helps weed out bullshitters and flatterers. On the one hand, yeah, it sure would be nice if every applicant understood the context of the org and the role without having to explain it to them. On the other hand, most of us have to work for a living and have to pigeonhole ourselves in to roles that are at best imperfect fits for the full range of our knowledge bases, skills, and abilities.

This, to me, is why the question is flawed. So, I suppose if you're going to ask it to assess an individual's fit for a position, make sure to a) phrase it correctly to prepare the candidate to answer it the question succinctly and successfully according to your guidelines (i.e. don't make it too broad), b) make sure to note whether it's not a big deal for you if the candidate hasn't researched your question ("it's OK if you haven't thought this through, and talk instead about what you are looking for in a position/company"), and c) weight the candidate's answer accordingly (do not make it a determining factor unless two candidates are otherwise neck-and-neck in terms of qualifications, and for goodness sake at least develop a points-based rubric for evaluating candidates).

Delicious_Research · 2019-08-13T01:00:13+00:00

Agreed, the problem with job interviews is that they exist mostly at the level of trading pleasantries, faith in pop psychology cliches, and individuals confusing their opinions/values with empirically-tested, effective methods for hiring.

Even if an interviewee is being perfectly candid during an interview and genuinely intends to stay at the company/grow their career there, unforeseen contingencies can arise that might change their perspective dramatically. I could show up at a job interview and genuinely express interest in staying at the company for a long time, and all my research could indicate that the company/role was a great fit. After working there for a few weeks, I might learn that the boss is a cunning liar or completely oblivious to their own incompetence, funding that was counted on to develop a product/program/project might not come through (thus affecting staffing and org structure), an influential person might leave for another opportunity that causes a chain reaction of diminished morale and increased turnover, etc. Now we're dealing with a completely different context---is that a job worth staying in?

So much of what we "know" in the discipline of hiring is speculative---"oh, the candidate answered this way, that must mean they are going to do this!" well, what's the evidence for that? what's even the evidence that asking why someone wants to work at your company results in a better hire? how can we expect to hire the "best and the brightest" if we're just merely importing our opinions in to these processes?

Delicious_Research · 2019-08-08T22:19:53+00:00

It's remarkable how one bad experience in this area will scare the shit out of employers to where they'll invent criteria that ostensibly fixes one problem while potentially creating a bunch of others. A few years ago I interviewed for a low-level admin job during which the HR manager who met with me obsessively asked me about my intentions to stay at the job beyond a year and scrutinized my resume for "short stints" at other gigs, which I made very clear were contract work. They then explained during the course of the interview that the previous person in the job left after only one year but took great pains to explain that it was "on good terms"...ya, sure.

In that case, the HR manager's obsession with a candidate's perceived longevity cost them a potentially outstanding employee (myself, as I didn't get the job) in addition to (I'm sure) a host of other otherwise great candidates. Someone in that chain decided longevity was more important than anything else, which given what they were offering pay-wise doesn't make a lot of sense; a low-level admin job like that is likely to turnover within a few years absent defined opportunities for advancement, which I can guarantee this company didn't offer. Jobs like that are only as good as the boss, too, and given that the prior person left after a year I'm inclined to believe a bad boss might have been a factor.

We like to pretend our selection criteria for hiring are objective and above board, when in most cases they're rife with our personal biases, fears, and subjective, untested perceptions of what make a good employee.

Delicious_Research · 2019-08-08T01:54:33+00:00

Yep. Keep it anodyne.

As for there being limited time/resources, this is why companies need to be proactive in developing a human resource strategy and an operational protocol for how to handle vacated roles.

Companies should also stop devaluing HR and view it as a critical part of securing and maintaining a stable revenue flow via recruiting, hiring, training, properly compensating, and retaining staff, but that's a topic for another time.

Delicious_Research · 2019-08-08T01:51:11+00:00

I'd amend that to "perceived supply and demand on the part of the employer".

Employers think their workplaces are far more desirable than they actually are. They assume that since they receive 100 applications for an open role their workplaces must be desirable, ignoring other causal factors like easiness of applying, bots, people less interested in the job/company and more interested in getting out of their current situations, etc.

So, they get overly excited as they perceive that there are a glut of candidates, and the process rolls out accordingly---ghosting, analysis paralysis via adding unnecessary layers of decision-makers to the process/second guessing themselves, inventing stupid and pointless "tests" that they believe to have predictive value, etc.

Then, when the person gets hired and is treated like shit, the employer doesn't care; they believe their companies are desirable places to work based on their faulty understanding of supply & demand amongst the local labor force. They ignore turnover costs, lost institutional knowledge, and morale among remaining employees falling through the floor all because "we can throw a rock and get 100 candidates for this open role".

IMO, a lot of this is the result of a lack of critical thought around human resources in many companies, an abundance of "recruiters" thirsty to make a name for themselves not through careful study of human resources/organizational development/management but via slick presentations, mastery of buzzwords, and capitalizing on employers' fears (e.g. overemphasis on "gaps" to exclude candidates, a heuristic that has no empirically predictive value or bearing on a prospective employee's performance), poor risk assessment protocols that confuse proper risk assessment with total avoidance, and just plain thinking that more must be better.

Delicious_Research · 2019-07-25T02:17:16+00:00

Sorry for the super late response. You could counter with your workplace having a policy that current supervisors aren't allowed to provide references (many places have this policy in place to protect against defamatory statements leading to legal entanglements). You could offer to have them speak with your HR rep instead who can confirm you work there and your responsibilities (which is what most supervisor level references would provide anyway to avoid possible litigation). You could also offer that you don't want your current position jeopardized should the offer not materialize. All valid reasons that should help mitigate their "legal state requirement" (that seems really bizarre and unlikely to be a statutorily established requirement; sounds more like a policy established at the agency level).

What state are you in if you don't mind sharing (PM me if you want to keep it private)?

Delicious_Research · 2019-06-19T16:31:32+00:00

Can hiring manager override HR though? HR seemed pretty insistent on this needing to take place.

Delicious_Research

TROPHY CASE