Thoughts from the "Other Side" of the Interview (employment, secretary)

[2nd trick op]

You don't have to go through the process too often to recognize that in the present economic environment, and perhaps more than any time previously, the employment interview has degenerated into a process of dressed-up deceit and feigned cordiality on both sides of the table.

But just once, let me get what's going on in my mind off my chest.

I'm wearing one of the two suits in my closet today, but one of the unanswered questions in my mind is whether I'll have to do so on a continuing basis. If a job requires a more elaborate and expensive wardrobe, the effect is exactly the same as a reduction in pay -- moreso, in fact, because under the perverse "logic" of the IRS, that stuff is "adaptable to general wear", and I might have to pay more income tax on what I earn to pay for both the cost and expensive dry cleaning.

And I know that I'm supposed to interpret the maximum amount of restrictions on my personal behavior in every word I hear. The message is similar to the old adage in the military that "For officers, whatever is not specifically forbidden is permissible, but for enlisted personnel, whatever is not specifically authorized is forbidden".

And one of my biggest concerns is that while I might get along well with those who originally hire me, a change in the hierarchy might put me "under the thumb" of one of those individuals who likes to throw his/her weight around and make a subordinate "jump through hoops" simply because he/she can. Back in the Seventies, when the intensification of the emancipation of women was just getting started, the stereotype of the secretary expected to make coffee was a commonly-cited sore point. That person might now be referred to as a gender-neutral "administrative assistant", but in many workplaces, the process of subjugation for subjugation's sake has intensified -- and heavily.

When I prepare for an interview, I can express my own concerns along three paths:

(1) I want to know what I'm expected to do, and I want clear feedback as to whether the right, or wrong choices were made.

(2) I want a clear depiction of "the path upward" -- not only with regard to additional responsibilities, but with regard to specific measures of performance. I don't want to hear that my efforts "will be remembered at your next review" -- only to see that review turn into an assault on what little autonomy and flexibility I've got left

(3) and finally, I want an assurance that there are some impositions of the personal whims of those in authority that I have a right to challenge.

In honesty, I'm now close enough to retirement that the concerns mentioned here aren't likely to be raised again. And as evidenced by the recent controversy over "unpaid overtime", recent expansions of the labor force toward newcomers who accept what a "traditional breadwinner" wouldn't stand for a decade or two ago have given the Korporate schlockmeisters many new areas in which to manipulate and deceive over a short-term which continues to grow shorter.

Where does it all end? When influence and interference from "within the Beltway" expands, we all lose over the long run.

[Hemlock140]

My boss once told me that I am encouraged to disagree, but had better be prepared to defend my position. That's also the way I manage. I may have a solution to a problem that affects my staff but I start off asking for their ideas, and if they don't come up with mine, or something better, will propose it and let them attempt to pick it apart. Disagreement, with civil discussion and debate is far better than imposing one's personal whims. I appreciate hearing your 3 concerns. At the end of every interview we ask if the candidate has anything they want to ask us. Surprisingly, most will go uh, uh, no. Those that have a list of several questions along the lines of your 3 paths will be rated higher.