by Angela Robinson
Anything worth having requires effort. Careers fall into this category. Getting work is work, and getting a job requires more than effort. It requires fluency in the language of the job search. It requires connections, and the luck or presence of mind or grace it takes to make them. It requires time and resources and persistence.
It also, unfortunately, means enduring a lot of irreverent treatment.
Resumes and cover letters submitted online may not ever even be seen by human eyes. We are told to craft the perfect resume, the perfect cover letter. We distill ourselves down to our most attractive parts, we suck out the marrow of what makes us wanted, we create paper versions of ourselves and snip, snip, snip.
Then, a computer program scans the documents, and if we don’t use the exact right words or use a file type it can’t read at all, into the trash bin it goes. Out goes the rejection.
We distill ourselves down to our most attractive parts, we suck out the marrow of what makes us wanted, we create paper versions of ourselves and snip, snip, snip.
Sure, you can try to guest the correct keywords, but that would mean tailoring your materials to fit each particular job. Writing a “perfect” resume is not only dependent on selecting and expressing worthy credentials, but gaming the software to let your document pass.
Some professionals advise that it’s better not to apply online at all, or at least, not to apply online only. Others happily cast their stones and declare it a “lazy” method.
“Lazy” feels like an especially ironic word to be used by people who let computers sort applications and potentially lose qualified applicants.
It can be argued that current applicants aren’t lazy as they are uninformed, as evidenced by the hundreds of articles with titles like “Things you don’t know about job search,” or “Mistakes you don’t know you’re making.” Self-education isn’t always easy; there’s a lot of conflicting career advice out there.
It starts to feel like the cover of a women’s magazine in a checkout line. You’re not good enough. What you’re doing wrong. How to attract your dream man/job and make him/it stay.
“Network” is a common antidote offered to the weary job seeker. (This survey claims as many as 85% of jobs are gotten through networking.) It’s good advice, but it’s not an immediate solution.
Networking takes time and often takes money (event-related costs, premium services on sites like LinkedIn.) It gives an advantage to people with more resources and social graces. There are more networking opportunities for people already in the workforce, paralleling the whole conundrum of entry level jobs asking for experience. Yet for the already employed, there exists the chance that networking could damage relationships with current employers.
The list of demands goes on. Read the employer’s mind. Know exactly how they’d like to be courted. Promise to solve all of their problems. Connect with someone at the company, but don’t inconvenience them. Hunt for contact info. Have a clean social media presence–having no social media presence may seem suspicious.
The list of actions required to secure a job keeps growing. It starts to feel like the cover of a women’s magazine in a checkout line. You’re not good enough. What you’re doing wrong. How to attract your dream man/job and make him/it stay.
But what’s truly unbearable is the lack of respect on the end of employers. Too often employers put rigorous stipulations on job seekers, only to deliver bad interviewing and hiring practices in return.
Applicants are responsible for the maximum amount of effort and professionalism; hirers, the minimum.
In a survey of 95,000 job candidates, 60% reported receiving impersonal job rejections, while 56% reported receiving no response at all. This means that over half of job applicants are rewarded for their efforts with inadequate feedback. Frequently, the job-seekers’ methods are cited as the cause of a lackluster response, but it seems unlikely that over HALF of all applicants are applying the “wrong” way. Even if they are, it would mean that half of the population is ignorant of recruitment standards, and would call for clearer communication of expectations.
There’s plenty more to dissatisfy jobseekers. The interview process is long and grueling (22.9 days, average), and employers often fail to communicate an accurate timeline of the interview/hiring process (or don’t stick one they’ve outlined.)
Sometimes, companies interview candidates even though they’ve already filled a position. They do this so that they seem like they’re considering multiple candidates, or to booster support for a candidate they’ve already chosen.
Job seekers are held to high (even perfectionistic) standards by companies who only claim to embody those same standards. The great inconsistency that exists between expected applicant and employer behavior is unjust.
Here lies the core of the problem.
Applicants are responsible for the maximum amount of effort and professionalism; hirers, the minimum.
Job seekers are expected to “prove” themselves worthy, while employers are not expected to do the same.
The discouraging part is not the effort that it takes to try to attain the job, but the lack of acknowledgment and respect for that effort. This makes for a lot of frustration in the system, both from job seekers and professionals. Job seekers can quickly become discouraged.
The discouraging part is not the effort that it takes to try to attain the job, but the lack of acknowledgment and respect for that effort.
There are ways to turn down an applicant more humanely, more professionally. A company can extend the same amount of regard to their candidates as the candidates have shown to them, with very little additional expenditure of time or money. There are ways to adjust the interview process to reduce tension between applicants and employers.
Yet that behavior is not compulsory, so companies are able to behave however they deem fit. Beyond sweeping critiques and reviews on sites like Glassdoor, there’s not much accountability for companies to treat candidates with decorum. Applicants accept the indignities of the job search without much opportunity for rebellion.
It’s demotivating. Who wants to work for someone who asks for more than they give back? (It hurts the business as well. Bad hiring practices turn candidates off of companies, and may translate into dissatisfaction on the job. They win no votes for employee loyalty, and replacing employees is costly.)
Unfortunately, many workers feel as if they don’t have a choice. Hopefully, that changes soon. The hiring process could use some reform. People call the job search a necessary evil. It may be necessary, but it doesn’t have to be evil.★
Angela Robinson has an MFA from Sarah Lawrence College. She currently lives in Central NY.
Is The Message 