Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i definitely think you should go ahead and interview for jobs even if you discover you're not interested in them. i've done that. it's practice. and you never know what you might learn in the interview - the job might be better suited for you than you thought. i've never applied for jobs i have no intention of doing though. and i think mass-sending generic resumes and cover letters is a terrible tactic. you'll get better results if you apply to 1/10 as many jobs that you are well-suited for with highly customized cover letters (and customized resumes, if appropriate). mass-applying to 100 jobs might seem like an efficient use of your time but it's really not.
i definitely think you should go ahead and interview for jobs even if you discover you're not interested in them. i've done that. it's practice. and you never know what you might learn in the interview - the job might be better suited for you than you thought. i've never applied for jobs i have no intention of doing though. and i think mass-sending generic resumes and cover letters is a terrible tactic. you'll get better results if you apply to 1/10 as many jobs that you are well-suited for with highly customized cover letters (and customized resumes, if appropriate). mass-applying to 100 jobs might seem like an efficient use of your time but it's really not.
I don't advocate the shotgun approach. You are correct in that it is a waste of time.
I don't really understand your animosity though. As a tip for helping to develop interview skills it is pretty good.
Not so much "animosity" as total disagreement with a time-wasting exercise - time-wasting for someone who's hiring. I doubt that anybody who's ever been either a business owner or someone responsible for hiring would feel differently for a heartbeat about someone using the application and interview process as purely a training exercise.
Not so much "animosity" as total disagreement with a time-wasting exercise - time-wasting for someone who's hiring. I doubt that anybody who's ever been either a business owner or someone responsible for hiring would feel differently for a heartbeat about someone using the application and interview process as purely a training exercise.
I have owned three different businesses, and I am a hiring manager. I tendered two job offers this week.
People waste my time in the hiring process all the time. Unqualified applicants, people who do not read my posted starting salary, people who don't show up for interviews, people who accept jobs then quit on day 3 to take a different position, people who lie on their applications.
Informational interviews are a complete waste of my time. RFPs with a predetermined award. Internal applicants. I could go on.
It's all a cost of doing business. It is my job as a hiring manager to minimize my costs, weed out the unsuitable applicants and move on. It's not personal.
If you are hiring for unskilled labor you have no right to complain about quality of applicants. You might have to get over yourself employers.
Absolutely incorrect.
I have hired unskilled, temporary help in the past. I wanted the best applicant I could get.
Specifically I hired seasonal cashiers. I wanted personable people who were inclined to be chatty and smile. I wanted people who dressed cleanly and neatly. I wanted people who would not bring drama and strife into the workplace. I wanted people who would show up on time.
If they had some experience and relevant skills, so much the better.
Your post implies that I should have sequentially hired the first 10 people to have applied. I would rather hire the first 10 who meet my criteria.
Then you backtrack and say this which I'm sure you must agree is rather contradictory in part except for the comment which I bolded and which partially supports your former statement:
And, judging from this, you therefore deem that wasting your time is also the prerogative of those applying to be part of your workforce and is entirely acceptable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
People waste my time in the hiring process all the time.
It's all a cost of doing business. It is my job as a hiring manager to minimize my costs, weed out the unsuitable applicants and move on. It's not personal.
It's hard to imagine that anyone would think that their time being wasted by someone who's merely using the application and interview process for practice is perfectly normal but obviously "minimizing costs" really isn't one of your priorities. I've owned and operated two (very successful) businesses and have hired for two not owned by me over the course of my working life and find your stance most odd.
Then you backtrack and say this which I'm sure you must agree is rather contradictory in part except for the comment which I bolded and which partially supports your former statement:
And, judging from this, you therefore deem that wasting your time is also the prerogative of those applying to be part of your workforce and is entirely acceptable?
It's hard to imagine that anyone would think that their time being wasted by someone who's merely using the application and interview process for practice is perfectly normal but obviously "minimizing costs" really isn't one of your priorities. I've owned and operated two (very successful) businesses and have hired for two not owned by me over the course of my working life and find your stance most odd.
Location, overqualification, and company are all reasons why I would not want to take a job. So there is really no contradiction, you simply do not like my reasons or how a phrased them.
The world is full of competing priorities. As a job seeker, my first obligation and highest priority is to get the best job possible for me. If that means doing things that are not the best for company X, that is not my problem.
Budweiser, Goodyear and coca cola spend big bucks advertising to me. I do not purchase any of their products. Should I offer them a few bucks to defray their advertising?
I sent out an RFP last week. One of the requirements is that I will not reimburse any of the costs of the companies submitting proposals, even though I know that some of my requirements will cost them some money.
As an organization, we spend a lot of money interacting with people who will not use our services. How is that any different from a job seeker?
Ultimately, I think that one of the values of this forum is in assisting people in gaining employment. My suggestion does work for some people, and for those people who need a job, I suggest that they not take into account a company's recruiting costs. It is not relevant to a job seeker.
As a manager I do have a different view. The incremental cost of a few additional applications is negligible. The reason to actually conduct an interview is to weed out people who are a bad fit. A person who does not want to work for my organization is, by definition, a bad fit.
Location, overqualification, and company are all reasons why I would not want to take a job. So there is really no contradiction, you simply do not like my reasons or how a phrased them.
And that is completely off base and incorrect. I'm commenting on "fake applications" and "fake interviews" as I was when I first opined on this thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
