When job hunting you come across the oddest reasons for being turned down, one of the oddest is geographic proximity. If I look for a job in the London area, a likely scenario, what is the big deal with me doing a weekly commute? On my dime and time, might I add. As long as I’m in the office 8.30 Monday morning isn’t that all that counts?
Is is this purely a UK issue? It being an island and all?
I frankly don’t understand, which is why this BBC article is so strange for me. While we’re not all property tycoons living in South of France I still don’t see the big thing about weekly commutes.
On the contrary, I see it as a possibility to personal growth and professional development.
Publicerat i Brussels, communications, Public Affairs, Public relations 2.0
Taggad balance, competence, cross cultural, job, Job hunt, job search, Jobs, LinkedIn, work
When job hunting, this is an automated message we’ve all received and we know that those words isn’t the beginning of a new and fruitful relationship. Fair enough and not that much of a problem; an organisation should recruit the person they believe can do the job.
No, what bothers me is the time lapsed between the application and this answer. Yesterday I submitted my CV to a large company for a Communications Director position. I immediately received a confirmation that they had received my application. And 32 minutes later I received this follow-up message:
Thank you for your recent application to XXXX.
After careful consideration we have decided not to progress with your application at this point in time as we have identified candidates that more closely match our requirements.
Please continue to review our current opportunities on the careers page of our website at xxx, to ensure consideration for future roles.
Thank you for the interest you’ve shown and may we wish you every success in your search for a new role.
XXX Talent Acquisition
Really? My application was carefully considered for the whole of 32 minutes. And that during a time of day when not many are at the office. How careful can you be in 32 minutes? Personally, I not only find this behaviour unprofessional I also find it rude.
I understand we all play the Taleo guessing game and unless my CV doesn’t contain the correct key words it won’t show up. But I would advice the responsible managers to programme an automated timer to the answer and hold it for 24 hours. It would at least make you look minimally professional.
Our level of professionalism is something I query every now and then. In particular when it comes to what is called “press contacts” in my line of business.
Let me explain with an example:
I am at interview (always there it happens) and the prospective employer asks me: Whom do you know at FT/the Economist/Computer World… (just pick your favourite news outlet).
The thinking being that as long as you know a journalist at these outlets your news will get printed. Seriously? Are we that unprofessional? Are journalists? Personally I am convinced that if a piece of news is of interest for that outlet, or rather its readers, it will get printed whether I know that journalist or not. OK, I understand that from a purely human angle it is easier to speak with, and listen too, someone you know – at least in a professional capacity – than a complete stranger. After all we’re only human, but evaluating if content are news worthy or not, surely that’s independent of personal ties?
It is my job as PR/Communications to explain to the eager person on my side of the fence that Yes, this is a completely new product it is of interest. No, bug fix number 1055 is not of interest even if it took you six months to fix it.
And I remain strong in my belief that if I indeed get to “know” the journalist, the outlet and its readers i.e. understand what triggers them and what they find interesting in what I might provide them with they will listen. Maybe not publish, I get that, but at least listen.
I must say that I find the approach above deplorable and unprofessional both concerning us as PR/Communicators and concerning journalists.
Or am I naïve?
Publicerat i Blogg, Brussels, communications, Public Affairs, Public relations 2.0
Taggad evaluation, journalist, Media, Media relations, PR, press, press relations, professional, Public Relations
No, I don’t mean curious as in strange, but curious as in ever wanting to find out what’s behind the next stone. Curious as in interested to learn and to find out more.
And I am talking about curious employees. Employees t that are willing to learn new things, employees that are willing to learn new thinking, or at least doesn’t mind thinking that there might be other mindsets than the ones well-known.
As any change specialist will tell one key in change is to find one or few champions and instil in them the courage to change. And this probably something of the most difficult there is – to embrace change. Even though I am now living and working in my sixth country, I don’t know how open to change I actually am.
Currently involved in a change process there is one big new development that potentially will be an industry shake up, but it will take time and effort – and curiosity. It isn’t for everyone, there are many employees that are happy to go to work, do their job as well as they can, and then go home. And like in any context all types are needed. But for a company to survive, we also need the shakers, the curious that are willing to look behind the stone to learn a new mind-set and a new way of thinking.
So how do you identify these employees?