My recent experience while applying to some high-level jobs have taught me a few things. I wish that ‘envy’ did not play a role in hiring decisions – but it does of course. On several occasions, my resume suggested that I was more qualified than the person interviewing me. On a couple other occasions, I felt like a psychologist, listening to the complaints of senior people who should have been interviewing me for a job. Frustrated by their own lack of apparent certification accomplishments, they find a way to disqualify me for an opportunity. Just yesterday, an HR manager called me fuming that the person who should have been calling me in for a technical interview refused to even meet with me – now how odd is that?
Lucky for me, I still have more opportunities, and better yet, firm offers on the table that I am mulling. I have better luck as a contractor, but it would have been nice to have something more certain and close to home.
I have now learned to go onto Linkedin.com and research key businesses and their hiring managers. I tried “dumbing-down” my resume. I suspect that I will get more call-ins, albeit less hits. It’s just an experiment. I will give it a month or so and report back what I find.
Likewise, when you are at a job interview, who has the problem? They do, they have a need to fill. So if they are doing a lot of complaining about how things are not going right, I would see this as a huge opportunity to highlight how I can solve the problems and so they should hire me.
I'd be inclined to agree with you except that the complaining actually is about their 'personal' problems, not an issue where I can use my professional expertise to resolve the issue that they are complaining about. I don't like being in that position as an applicant. Maybe after I am hired, I'd be more open to entertaining some personal problems to some degree.
I guess that all depends on where you want to be, professionally. In my experience, the personality that someone brings to an environment is more important than his or her technical skills. Employers can provide training for technical skills. Someone’s personality is generally set in life and takes a great deal more effort and time to change.
I prefer working in smaller organizations where I gel with the people, over organizations that directly match my skills and experience or potentially even pay better. If you simply don’t get along or share viewpoints with the people expressing their problems, then that is one thing. But on the other hand, these folks felt comfortable enough with you to open up personally – bring you into their life. How you choose to respond to that in an interview may show more about who you really are and how you’ll fit into their team than your ability to kick flip a server rack into position while sky diving from a balloon at 100 miles, blind folded and on fire.
I think your comment highlights what I was saying about where you want to fit into an organization. You define yourself as a senior security practitioner. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Each of us gets to identify ourselves the way we want and set our own career goals.
From what Lamont opened this conversation with, it appeared as though the major topic wasn’t about addressing the interviewer’s political viewpoints, disagreements with other departments over budget, or other dirty laundry – instead it appeared to be about a business problem impacting the department to which he was applying. Specifically, the career development of the existing security department employees.
Now, depending on where you want to fit into this organization I currently see two options: (1) Decide what you want is a senior technician/engineering role and this isn’t a problem you want to solve; or (2) Decide what you want is a leadership role and this is a problem that you can address using non-technical soft skills.
I personally don’t see a problem with either choice. But, it is up to each of us to make on our own.
I wasn't aware that the venting was about personal issue. That changes my post to where I agree with him. I originally thought when he said talking about problems it meant business problems and my point was that's a job interview gold mine.
Perhaps we can disagree without resorting to simplistic, juvenile name calling and inappropriate comments on a "professional" discussion board.
If so yes, I really will. If you are unsure as to what it means... well, lets try to keep it clean shall we?
N.B. (that means nota bene): I was agreeing with you. I was wrong in interpreting his comment that the complaining was business-related. Since it was not business-related, I agree with you that he should exit the interview quickly.
On balance you wouldn't want to take a job with an organisation which resented your qualifications and competencies. It could make for a lot of frustration and a difficult working relationship.
Understand this is my point of view as a former hiring manager and I am not attributing this to anyone in this thread.
I never was envious of the candidates I interviewed. I am hiring a SME (Subject Matter expert) so I expect you to know more than me. I did however see several candidates, and it wasn't all of them, who had a long list of alphabet soup behind their names who were very arrogant and condescending. I know personally of one individual who got a PhD and then demanded everyone call him Dr. He eventually lost his job due to his inability to communicate effectively with others as he spoke down to people and made them feel stupid. He also did not communicate what he was doing to senior management and kind of operated like the wizard in the Wizard of Oz. Hiding behind a shower curtain while trying to maintain the image of an all-knowing, omnipotent security professional. He had gotten too high.
For me the resume was just to see who I invited to the interview. I scored several things to narrow down my list and these included: work experience, certifications (capped at 3), awards and education. Some candidates had lots of education but no certs or experience; some had lots of experience but no certs or education; some were even over-qualified for the job; some just put their resume in for every job out there, whether they were qualified or not.
If an applicant was over-qualified I would still offer the interview to see if they were a fit. Sometimes if they came in to the interview with that "I'm superior to you attitude" they were not extended a job offer. Does that mean I was envious of them? No. I just don't want to hire jerks. Does that mean every hiring official is like me? No. There are jerks that do hiring also.
My point in all of this is to agree with Lamont, don't get too high when you apply for jobs. Don't "dumb down" your resume to make you seem less qualified, ensure your resume has enough of the right information to get you to the interview. If you feel you are over qualified, include a cover letter stating why you desire that job. I once had an applicant with 6 PhD's apply for an IT job. His PhD's were all in religion and were from a bible college, which had nothing to do with IT. I took it as he was trying to be too high and thought I might be impressed with all those PhD's, nope didn't have anything to do with IT. He included information that was not relevant to the job.
Once you get the interview, then it is a two-way street to see if you are the right fit for each other. I have turned down some jobs during the interview. I could see that it was not the right environment for me.