# Two huge mistakes job seekers make



## doublejm1 (Sep 2, 2012)

Thought this was a good post to share -- a timely one as well considering two of my friends are having a hard time finding work:




I think the author missed one, though. A lot of people don't prepare for interviews and, as a consequence, get blindsided by tough questions.


----------



## Doktorin Zylinder (May 10, 2015)

What I find hilarious is that most HR departments can't justify their existence and the only question in an interview that can actually provide any insight into whether or not a candidate is of any consequence is "what do you know about the company?"

Whether or nor you get a job seems to be more about who you know and how well you can suck up to the interviewer, not how well you can do the job because they don't know how well you can do it until after you're hired. Besides the fact that most people lie on their resumes and most companies lie on the job postings and duties, they are just looking for someone who gets along in their environment and can do the job and won't ask too many questions or cause waves. Most people can do the job to be completely honest. Most jobs are neither difficult nor complicated and most people are incredibly over educated for their positions. 

Considering that I will be hiring people for my own business this month and next, I'll be approaching hiring in a completely different manner than the current model.


----------



## Thomas60 (Aug 7, 2011)

Doktorin Zylinder said:


> What I find hilarious is that most HR departments can't justify their existence and the only question in an interview that can actually provide any insight into whether or not a candidate is of any consequence is "what do you know about the company?"


I suspect they're meant to base it on reduced costs associated with recruiting, selecting, hiring, training, firing, misjudged salaries, and offer solutions to future staffing needs and other corporate objectives (aside profit).


----------



## Doktorin Zylinder (May 10, 2015)

Thomas60 said:


> I suspect they're meant to base it on reduced costs associated with recruiting, selecting, hiring, training, firing, misjudged salaries, and offer solutions to future staffing needs and other corporate objectives (aside profit).


All of that can be done by immediate management and the accounting department. I've seen companies do it very efficiently that way.


----------



## Thomas60 (Aug 7, 2011)

Doktorin Zylinder said:


> All of that can be done by immediate management and the accounting department. I've seen companies do it very efficiently that way.


Without appealing to external evidence, I would say that it cannot be done as efficiently by people with less expertise and more diluted responsibilities. In the case of small to medium companies, there's not enough HR activities to justify a department, and in the case of low-skill high-turnover positions, there's not much value to add either, so management and accounting will find that self-recruiting makes economic sense (such as when I worked for a Fuel Marketer / or needed to staff my retail store).

I don't think the same can be said for companies that fill 100+ $50K+ salary positions each year.
I could justify paying my managers and accounts team less, if they have less responsibility.


----------



## Doktorin Zylinder (May 10, 2015)

Thomas60 said:


> Without appealing to external evidence, I would say that it cannot be done as efficiently by people with less expertise and more diluted responsibilities. In the case of small to medium companies, there's not enough HR activities to justify a department, and in the case of low-skill high-turnover positions, there's not much value to add either, so management and accounting will find that self-recruiting makes economic sense (such as when I worked for a Fuel Marketer / or needed to staff my retail store).
> 
> I don't think the same can be said for companies that fill 100+ $50K+ salary positions each year.
> I could justify paying my managers and accounts team less, if they have less responsibility.


I'm going to cite the Dunning–Kruger Effect. People who do nothing but hiring and are trained to do it are incapable of properly assessing the skills of positions for which they themselves are not qualified. I recently had an engineering acquaintance of mine ask me about an HR person by whom he was interviewed. The interviewer had a masters in military history and a bachelors in anthropology. I don't see how this person was even remotely capable of assessing the abilities of a process engineer. What does the interviewee's favorite animal have to do with vane packs and cyclone separators or packing towers? Absolutely nothing. If it's supposed to give some sort of insight into the person's psyche, it fails because it lacks context. 

From what I've seen, HR departments of any size are inefficient and a waste of money.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Doktorin Zylinder said:


> All of that can be done by immediate management and the accounting department. I've seen companies do it very efficiently that way.


At my previous job there was a Human Resources department and I didn't even know they existed until some people were made redundant (not me). They weren't even present at interviews.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Doktorin Zylinder said:


> What I find hilarious is that most HR departments can't justify their existence and the only question in an interview that can actually provide any insight into whether or not a candidate is of any consequence is "what do you know about the company?"
> 
> Whether or nor you get a job seems to be more about who you know and how well you can suck up to the interviewer, not how well you can do the job because they don't know how well you can do it until after you're hired. Besides the fact that most people lie on their resumes and most companies lie on the job postings and duties, they are just looking for someone who gets along in their environment and can do the job and won't ask too many questions or cause waves. Most people can do the job to be completely honest. Most jobs are neither difficult nor complicated and most people are incredibly over educated for their positions.
> 
> Considering that I will be hiring people for my own business this month and next, I'll be approaching hiring in a completely different manner than the current model.


Well good luck in achieving your business goals as instead of providing what ever service your business is catered towards, you will quite possibly be spending your days sifting through CV's and conducting interviews.

Where as employ an HR department or use recruitment firms, they can do this task for you at a lower rate thus enabling you to actually do your job.

Say you advertise a role,

You get 100 CV's and applications, thats possiblya couple of days of your time or another managers time sifting through them instead of doing their actual job.

Say you interview 10 of these people, you then probably spend 30 min to 1 hour in each interview. SO thats a days work missed.

Then you have to prepare the interview as well, say there are 2 or 3 people conducting the interview (based on personal experience this seems to be the norm) so thats really 3 days work down the drain.

Then say you conduct a second interview, thats another day or so's missed work.

The market and customers will not wait for you.

Its simple supply and demand. If you cant supply your service/goods, someone else will.

But who cares about customers and profits, you have created a new model.

Funnily enough the main reason these models exist is because alternatives have already been tried out and the working ones are the ones found to be most effective.


----------



## MsBossyPants (Oct 5, 2011)

Some observations from a Director of Human Resources: *tl;dr

**depending on the size of the company, it's possible to receive hundreds upon hundreds of resumes for one position. At first blush, what I'm looking for is your work history, education, and experience as it relates to the position. So yes, as the article cited in the OP suggests, you have a better shot at getting put in the "next round" pile if your qualifications meet the specific criteria, so it pays to stress your experience, education, and training in that area. I would also add: don't lie. We'll be verifying that information if you make it far enough along in the process. 

**"sucking up to the interviewer" is one of the biggest mistakes people make. What you may not know? I have extensive training in how to spot deception. When I ask you those open-ended, seemingly pointless questions like "where do you see yourself in 5 years" or "tell me what you know about the company" or "what sort of hobbies are you interested in?" I don't really care too much about your answer. What I'm looking for is your "tell". I'm listening for voice inflection. I'm assessing your body positioning and watching your facial tics and expressions. It gives me a great baseline from which to assess your subsequent behavior. Now, I know when you're lying to me. I know when you are trying to "suck up" or exaggerate. I just asked you an innocuous question about what your hobbies are and you lied to me about it. That doesn't bode well. Good luck with that, it's pretty easy to spot.

**having an "in" isn't always an in. Be careful about whom you cite as a reference within the company. You're a buddy of Bob Smith? - he trained you at your last job and you would like us to know that. Wonderful. Thanks for letting me know. Given Bob's job performance, he's probably not the ace-in-the-hole you think he is. 

**I know something about the position you don't. Yes, I'm looking for a Marketing Manager. With a Bachelor's degree. And 5 years experience. What I know that you don't is why the person who previously had the position no longer works here. If I get a whiff of anything that suggests you will have the same problem, "thank you for coming in". 

**your resume gets you to the interview. Your interview is what gets you the job. Frankly, on paper, any number of candidates are qualified for the job. Your degree in [whatever] while a personal achievement, isn't all that impressive. I've got 100 other people with the same degree vying for the position. Your knowledge of [field related properties]? Same thing. Not a lot of people can claim extensive knowledge in that area. Unfortunately for you, most everyone else applying for the job, can. I'm not going to ask you too much about the specific knowledge you think you have in your field, and I don't really care what your last employer thought of you. That reference isn't as important as you think it is. It's merely his/her subjective opinion. (good ... or bad) All we are looking for from your prior employer is what we can objectively verify:
hire and termination dates
salary
job duties of the position

**Your potential future boss has given me a list of things (s)he's looking for. Plenty of applicants are suitable. The negatives are deal breakers. Once you've made it to the interview process, it's more about intangibles. If you're an otherwise great candidate, but you're weak in a certain technical area, we can offer you additional training to bring you up-to-speed. We'll think of it as an investment that will pay dividends in the future. On the other hand, if you're extremely knowledgeable but you're also a person with bad attitude, or a chip on your shoulder, or don't work well with others, in the end, hiring you will cost the company money in lost man-hours, "sick" days, supervisor consults with you about your performance, etc. Your supervisor talking to management about your bad attitude? That's THREE people not being productive. No matter how knowledgeable you are, in the big picture, you're a bad employee who is going to end up costing us money. 

**Every applicant thinks (s)he is a good candidate for the job. By all means, go to the interview projecting that confidence, but understand that most everyone looks good paper. My best advice? Think of your interview as a lie detector test. Your best strategy is to tell the truth; that way, you'll end up with the job that you really want, are truly qualified for, and the one you are best suited for. And send the thank you letter. It's another measure of your people skills and business communication skills.

*tl;dr - tailor your resume to fit the job you are applying for, don't try to lie during your interview, send the "thank you" letter


----------



## MsBossyPants (Oct 5, 2011)

Doktorin Zylinder said:


> I'm going to cite the Dunning–Kruger Effect. People who do nothing but hiring and are trained to do it are incapable of properly assessing the skills of positions for which they themselves are not qualified. I recently had an engineering acquaintance of mine ask me about an HR person by whom he was interviewed. The interviewer had a masters in military history and a bachelors in anthropology. I don't see how this person was even remotely capable of assessing the abilities of a process engineer. What does the interviewee's favorite animal have to do with vane packs and cyclone separators or packing towers? Absolutely nothing. If it's supposed to give some sort of insight into the person's psyche, it fails because it lacks context.
> 
> From what I've seen, HR departments of any size are inefficient and a waste of money.


From my experience, Dunning-Kruger is more common in "promote from within" practices or where the manager of a department or owner of a business does their own hiring. At its worst, you end up with a staff very technically proficient at a certain skill or in a certain field incorrectly assuming this qualifies them to manage a department or run a company. 

This frequently happens when supervisors (a taskmaster oriented skill) are promoted into what is perceived as "the next step up" - management positions, or when small business owners attempt to do their own accounting, etc. They over estimate their own abilities.

You're actually guilty of Dunning-Kruger yourself, here. While you have no experience in Human Resources, you assume you know more about it than someone who is trained in and has experience in the field.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

MsBossyPants said:


> snip


If I don't get to the interview and I do think I have the necessary skills but perhaps not over them and sometimes a little under, what am I doing wrong, though? How do I promote that without sounding desperate in the resume?


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

doublejm1 said:


> Thought this was a good post to share -- a timely one as well considering two of my friends are having a hard time finding work:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the author missed one, though. A lot of people don't prepare for interviews and, as a consequence, get blindsided by tough questions.


The first point should be obvious.
As for the second one, I'd say that depends very much on where you live. If employers have never even heard of a thank you letter in the country where you live, they might think you're some creepy stalker or really desperate or just plain annoying.


----------



## MsBossyPants (Oct 5, 2011)

Entropic said:


> If I don't get to the interview and I do think I have the necessary skills but perhaps not over them and sometimes a little under, what am I doing wrong, though? How do I promote that without sounding desperate in the resume?


It may be that there is nothing that is generally unacceptable about your resume itself or the content. Don't assume that not getting a follow up invitation to interview suggests that anything was "wrong" with your application. Each HR department sets it own criteria. There could be all sorts of reasons why your resume doesn't get noticed that have nothing to do with you. Sometimes it's just company guideline standards that weed out resumes on appearance (think font, formatting, and paper color). 

I've always found this sort of thing to be officious and limiting. Silly, really. Within generally acceptable standards, I don't care so much what your resume looks like as long as it's presentable and businesslike. I'm more interested in the content. Frankly, if you're a qualified applicant and submit an acceptable resume that is getting bounced by HR for merely cosmetic reasons, in my opinion, you probably don't want to work there. I think an officious HR department stifles creativity in hiring - it sucks the life out of a company and creates an environment filled with cookie-cutter drones. All you end up with is people who are really good at creating resumes. I'd much rather staff my company with people who are really good at their chosen profession. 


Also, sometimes, there is a cut-off of how many resumes get accepted for consideration (the first XXX that are qualified). Faced with an embarassment of riches, at a certain point, if you are confident that you have enough applicants from which to start the interview process, it isn't cost effective to read though hundreds more and potentially interview another 10 or 12. Or, if during the first round of interviews a candidate that is to the liking of the department head is found (with a few back-up candidates) the procedure is at an end. If this happens, you'll sometimes get a letter acknowledging receipt of your resume and suggesting you reapply in the future.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

MsBossyPants said:


> It may be that there is nothing that is generally unacceptable about your resume itself or the content. Don't assume that not getting a follow up invitation to interview suggests that anything was "wrong" with your application. Each HR department sets it own criteria. There could be all sorts of reasons why your resume doesn't get noticed that have nothing to do with you. Sometimes it's just company guideline standards that weed out resumes on appearance (think font, formatting, and paper color).
> 
> I've always found this sort of thing to be officious and limiting. Silly, really. Within generally acceptable standards, I don't care so much what your resume looks like as long as it's presentable and businesslike. I'm more interested in the content. Frankly, if you're a qualified applicant and submit an acceptable resume that is getting bounced by HR for merely cosmetic reasons, in my opinion, you probably don't want to work there. I think an officious HR department stifles creativity in hiring - it sucks the life out of a company and creates an environment filled with cookie-cutter drones. All you end up with is people who are really good at creating resumes. I'd much rather staff my company with people who are really good at their chosen profession.
> 
> ...


What has happened in the past weeks is that I've gotten numerous telephone interviews and that's where the screening process ends. Even when I try to follow up I can't even get back in touch because all I ever reach is a voice box or failure to return emails that seem to get lost in cyberspace. 

There's also an extreme lack of junior positions in my country. I graduated 3 years ago. 

I honestly wish I lived somewhere more populous as there seem to be way more open positions for people with my degree. 

And I do think my resume looks all right. I managed to stuff a photo of myself including contact information at the top, the font is neutral and it's well organized based on time with the most recent position to the earliest in descending order etc. I mean, it probably looks fairly typical in this regard. I just constantly get the feeling that I never seem to have sufficient credentials.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

I have been fortunate enough to be in management, where HR only functioned at filing insurance paperwork. I did the hiring and my hires were simply entered into the computer, and the Employment package was sent. It wasn't even a matter of reject or accept. There was only a regional HR member, and her job was to make sure everyone's health insurance was filed.(A glorified secretary with a masters in Sociology) 

I also find that in places where HR is not restricted to secretarial work, HR tends to hire people of inferior abilities to protect their jobs, or create restrictions to someone entering the workplace, that may be promoted before them. That is the best case scenario. Its simply rational self interest. 

Whereas companies that let people who know what the company actually needs, do the hiring, have far less of a problem, because they are already a part of the vital function of the company itself. Hence, eliminating the need to view every potential employee as one's replacement or ones future boss. When you actually have a function in the puzzle, people tend to be less likely to face rational self interest dilemmas, then say someone whose function is the barcode on the puzzle box.


----------



## Doktorin Zylinder (May 10, 2015)

cybersloth81 said:


> Well good luck in achieving your business goals as instead of providing what ever service your business is catered towards, you will quite possibly be spending your days sifting through CV's and conducting interviews.
> 
> Where as employ an HR department or use recruitment firms, they can do this task for you at a lower rate thus enabling you to actually do your job.
> 
> ...


So, you're making a lot of assumptions, here. 

Firstly, I knew full well going in that I would be doing the hiring and I prefer it that way. For the amount of time it will take me to sift through resumes, I can save the placement fees of recruiters who know nothing. This is a new business and no one around here does what I'm going to be doing. I don't expect someone who knows nothing to be able to assess my needs and be able to find the people I need just because they are a recruiter. The other thing is I'd rather have someone with less experience and train them myself than someone who thinks they know things and I have to break their bad habits. It's just a waste of time and money. I expect to train people from the ground up. It saves a lot of headaches. 

Secondly, The market and customers will wait for me because they are only a byproduct of my business model. I don't need customers in this case, or at least in the traditional sense. No, I'm not going to tell you what I'm doing, either. I know it sounds ludicrous but, like I said, you're making a lot of assumptions. You have no idea what I'm doing and telling me that my managers and I will be doing is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. 

Thirdly, I'm well versed in economics and I can tell you that most models are incredibly faulty if not just plain wrong. A lot of businesses including recruitment agencies are based more on convenience than actual efficiency. Think of it like frozen foods in the freezer aisle. It's cheaper, tastier, and probably more nutritious to make your own macaroni and cheese at home and it doesn't really take that long to do so, but people buy the prepackaged one because they either think they can't do it or they don't want to or they'll save time. It also gives them someone else to blame if they don't like it. The same can be said for recruiters. I have yet to find any who can justify their existence. I've dealt with enough to know that they shouldn't be hiring in pretty much any field in which I've worked. If they were competent, I wouldn't have had to go in and fix the problems created by their hires in the first place. The same goes for HR in those cases.



MsBossyPants said:


> Some observations from a Director of Human Resources: *tl;dr
> 
> **depending on the size of the company, it's possible to receive hundreds upon hundreds of resumes for one position. At first blush, what I'm looking for is your work history, education, and experience as it relates to the position. So yes, as the article cited in the OP suggests, you have a better shot at getting put in the "next round" pile if your qualifications meet the specific criteria, so it pays to stress your experience, education, and training in that area. I would also add: don't lie. We'll be verifying that information if you make it far enough along in the process.


Well, what was really funny after the recession was that there were enough companies that went out of business that it made checking previous work experience nearly impossible. Something else I've come to know is that education means very little in the working world. A degree does not impart competence and, in some cases, I'd go so far as to say it is detrimental to some. It's quite hilarious that society has been fed this lie that everyone needs a degree or specific education to get a job. People don't. It just perpetuates the pocket padding and those in hiring positions feed the fallacy. It's also a double standard for companies to lie on job postings and in interviews when they tell the candidate or new employee one thing and then have them do something else entirely because they can. When I'm consulting, if this happens to me, I tell them they better tell me what is really going on and then charge them double or I'd leave. My time is valuable; I don't put up with crap. Companies seems to think they can screw with people because someone needs a paycheck. It's unfortunate that people let it happen, but the chain is only as strong as its weakest link and weak links are plentiful. 



MsBossyPants said:


> **"sucking up to the interviewer" is one of the biggest mistakes people make. What you may not know? I have extensive training in how to spot deception. When I ask you those open-ended, seemingly pointless questions like "where do you see yourself in 5 years" or "tell me what you know about the company" or "what sort of hobbies are you interested in?" I don't really care too much about your answer. What I'm looking for is your "tell". I'm listening for voice inflection. I'm assessing your body positioning and watching your facial tics and expressions. It gives me a great baseline from which to assess your subsequent behavior. Now, I know when you're lying to me. I know when you are trying to "suck up" or exaggerate. I just asked you an innocuous question about what your hobbies are and you lied to me about it. That doesn't bode well. Good luck with that, it's pretty easy to spot.


This is the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Interviewing someone who is nervous isn't going to give a proper baseline to figure out if someone is lying or has a tell. Even interrogators know this yet they still seem to think people are lying when in many cases they aren't. Most people really want or need a job and being nervous about an interview is quite common in my experience. Social and cultural inclinations must also be taken into account. I knew someone from the Caribbean who had a terrible time getting a job here because, in her culture, eye contact is seen as confrontational and aggressive so she doesn't make it. In North America, eye contact is usually seen as some form of trust building. Recruiters and HR don't take these things into account. The same can be said for me. I have Asperger's Syndrome and eye contact is painful for me. I don't make it, either. I'm also very stiff all the time. I don't like touching nor shaking hands and I have very odd body language that isn't usually seen in the neurotypical population. Most people think I'm unreadable but I do have natural tics and my voice is very flat with little inflection. You would need hours if not days to get a proper baseline. It's well known within the community that people with AS get accused of being guilty a lot of the time because we don't fit the norm. Based on your "extensive training," someone like me wouldn't get the job because the interviewer _thinks_ they know what they're doing. The fact is, the interviewer also can't ask the person if they are disabled nor do most people disclose their disabilities on the chance that they, too, will be passed over because of them. 



MsBossyPants said:


> **having an "in" isn't always an in. Be careful about whom you cite as a reference within the company. You're a buddy of Bob Smith? - he trained you at your last job and you would like us to know that. Wonderful. Thanks for letting me know. Given Bob's job performance, he's probably not the ace-in-the-hole you think he is.


In the industries in which I've worked, it's who you know. I've known people who have put out hundreds of resumes in a month and they end up talking to an acquaintance who knows someone and they have a job inside a week with one phone interview. There is no pussy-footing around with three interviews wasting time. Someone vouching for you can mean a lot more than someone who doesn't know the industry questioning you and looking for "tells."



MsBossyPants said:


> **I know something about the position you don't. Yes, I'm looking for a Marketing Manager. With a Bachelor's degree. And 5 years experience. What I know that you don't is why the person who previously had the position no longer works here. If I get a whiff of anything that suggests you will have the same problem, "thank you for coming in".


That may be true, but you're only speculating as to whether a candidate will have the same problem. From what I've seen, such problems are pretty common. A lot of the time, it's the company and the environment and not necessarily the candidate. 



MsBossyPants said:


> **your resume gets you to the interview. Your interview is what gets you the job. Frankly, on paper, any number of candidates are qualified for the job. Your degree in [whatever] while a personal achievement, isn't all that impressive. I've got 100 other people with the same degree vying for the position. Your knowledge of [field related properties]? Same thing. Not a lot of people can claim extensive knowledge in that area. Unfortunately for you, most everyone else applying for the job, can. I'm not going to ask you too much about the specific knowledge you think you have in your field, and I don't really care what your last employer thought of you. That reference isn't as important as you think it is. It's merely his/her subjective opinion. (good ... or bad) All we are looking for from your prior employer is what we can objectively verify:
> hire and termination dates
> salary
> job duties of the position


This was addressed above. Something else that I've come to find is that a lot of companies aren't even willing to give this information out anymore due to possible litigation for defamation of character. 



MsBossyPants said:


> **Your potential future boss has given me a list of things (s)he's looking for. Plenty of applicants are suitable. The negatives are deal breakers. Once you've made it to the interview process, it's more about intangibles. If you're an otherwise great candidate, but you're weak in a certain technical area, we can offer you additional training to bring you up-to-speed. We'll think of it as an investment that will pay dividends in the future. On the other hand, if you're extremely knowledgeable but you're also a person with bad attitude, or a chip on your shoulder, or don't work well with others, in the end, hiring you will cost the company money in lost man-hours, "sick" days, supervisor consults with you about your performance, etc. Your supervisor talking to management about your bad attitude? That's THREE people not being productive. No matter how knowledgeable you are, in the big picture, you're a bad employee who is going to end up costing us money.


It's too bad that I've known a lot of companies to be full of people with bad attitudes who manage to cover each others' incompetency. It's too bad that being a people person and getting along with others yet unable to complete the task at hand pads my pocket at an extreme rate. It's too bad that sometimes someone who has to come in and crack a whip to actually get things done causes waves and hurt feelings. That's what I have had to do. I know employee turnover is a huge cost, but so is a bunch of really friendly people who are "qualified" for their positions yet are so incompetent and inept that an external consultant has to come in and fix their screw ups on a regular basis. I don't get paid to be nice. I get paid to get the job done. Having seen that most offices are full of people who don't do anything, I find it hard to believe that the HR department at these companies have any inkling of what they're doing when three people are doing the work of one. I'm sorry, you don't fit in with our company culture. So, what? It's really nice that you think that, but I've seen a quite a few companies go bankrupt with that attitude. Company cultures are about creating sameness unless it's Google or the like. They like nice little cogs who kind of perform their tasks but don't talk back and everyone gets along nicely. It's too bad that a lot of such places lack creativity and end up going out of business because sameness isn't about innovation. 



MsBossyPants said:


> **Every applicant thinks (s)he is a good candidate for the job. By all means, go to the interview projecting that confidence, but understand that most everyone looks good paper. My best advice? Think of your interview as a lie detector test. Your best strategy is to tell the truth; that way, you'll end up with the job that you really want, are truly qualified for, and the one you are best suited for. And send the thank you letter. It's another measure of your people skills and business communication skills.
> 
> *tl;dr - tailor your resume to fit the job you are applying for, don't try to lie during your interview, send the "thank you" letter


A lie detector test. Well, I already addressed that. Besides the fact that polygraphs are wrong most of the time and aren't admissible as evidence in a supreme court case and can be easily duped, I wouldn't be all that worried about that. People lie constantly. How are you? I'm fine. No, you aren't. You're nervous as hell that you won't get the job. If you tell the interviewer that, it says that you lack self-confidence. That is a strike against you. Where do you see yourself in five years? Well, I'd really like to have your position after I undermine you for quite some time and you either leave or get fired. Really? You're really going to tell someone that? No. I don't think people are really that stupid. People are selfish. They have their own self-interest at heart and aren't about to tell you the truth as to what they really want. They are going to give you the answer they think you want to hear. 

In my mind, sending a thank you letter is sucking up to the interviewer. That wouldn't fly me. I didn't send give you a wedding gift. There is no reason for a thank you letter. I'm not going to read it anyway. It's a waste of my time and yours. 



MsBossyPants said:


> From my experience, Dunning-Kruger is more common in "promote from within" practices or where the manager of a department or owner of a business does their own hiring. At its worst, you end up with a staff very technically proficient at a certain skill or in a certain field incorrectly assuming this qualifies them to manage a department or run a company.
> 
> This frequently happens when supervisors (a taskmaster oriented skill) are promoted into what is perceived as "the next step up" - management positions, or when small business owners attempt to do their own accounting, etc. They over estimate their own abilities.
> 
> You're actually guilty of Dunning-Kruger yourself, here. While you have no experience in Human Resources, you assume you know more about it than someone who is trained in and has experience in the field.


Promoting from within and rising to the level of your incompetency are more about the Peter Principle than the Dunning-Kruger Effect. 

I've also done my own accounting and run my own company without a degree in business. According to your logic, it shouldn't be so, but I have seen numerous MBAs drive companies into the ground, put profitable companies millions of dollars in debt, and destroyed jobs and livelihoods. But that degree and those letters mean everything and denote such competence that no such person could ever do any wrong. That was sarcasm.

If people aren't willing to learn and better themselves, how will they become proficient at anything? They won't. Accounting isn't all that difficult. It's not hard to read a balance sheet. Taxes are another matter depending on the country, but I know a lot of small business owners who do their own without any trouble and none of them are accountants. 

You're making an assumption that I have no HR experience. You're wrong. I've hired and fired people. I've gutted departments and set up new ones. I've hosted and sat in on interviews. I look for competency above all else. I care about whether someone can do the job and do it well as opposed to how well they get along with their coworkers. Work isn't about being buddy-buddy with your cubicle crony. It's about completing the task assigned to a certain standard. 

I once went in on contract for a company to fix their massive escapade in idiocy and was given the power to do what I needed to remedy the situation. I fired everyone in that department and did the work myself on time and under budget. Eight allegedly qualified and competent people were incapable of doing what I did. I must have a bad attitude.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

Doktorin Zylinder said:


> Considering that I will be hiring people for my own business this month and next, I'll be approaching hiring in a completely different manner than the current model.


For small business it is the best. Lately I do business with smaller companies as freelancer in software testing and it always best if you do the interview with a person who has the overall responsibility - things are efficient and quick and everyone who makes decisions has the knowledge. Usually lead programmer other expert in field is present too.

I was not very satisfied in companies where there is gaps in between the people who hire me, who see my work and who make decisions.


----------



## MsBossyPants (Oct 5, 2011)

Carpentet810 said:


> *I also find that in places where HR is not restricted to secretarial work, HR tends to hire people of inferior abilities to protect their jobs, or create restrictions to someone entering the workplace, that may be promoted before them. *That is the best case scenario. Its simply rational self interest.


 I'm not in competition with middle management. The HR Directors postition is one that's actually between middle and upper management. Hiring people with inferior abilites that creates a revolving door effect doesn't insure job security for me. * I'm evaluated by upper managment for my ability to do just the opposite.* It's in my best interest to hire top quality managers and employees. Your comment about them "being promoted before me" makes no sense. I'm already working at a level above them. I *hire* middle mangement. Upper management , if not satisfied with my abilities will head-hunt a new Director of HR. I answer to them, not middle management. 

Even in a smaller company, someone working in HR is held accountable for the quality of people they hire. It's not to their advantage to hire poorly skilled potential managers thinking that this will get them promoted above them. You're not giving upper management enough credit here, and not thinking far enough ahead from the perspective of the HR rep. 



> *I have been fortunate enough to be in management, where HR only functioned at filing insurance paperwork. I did the hiring and my hires were simply entered into the computer, and the Employment package was sent. It wasn't even a matter of reject or accept.* There was only a regional HR member, and her job was to make sure everyone's health insurance was filed.(A glorified secretary with a masters in Sociology)
> *
> Whereas companies that let people who know what the company actually needs, do the hiring, have far less of a problem, because they are already a part of the vital function of the company itself. Hence, eliminating the need to view every potential employee as one's replacement or ones future boss. *When you actually have a function in the puzzle, people tend to be less likely to face rational self interest dilemmas, then say someone whose function is the barcode on the puzzle box.


That second paragraph above actually defines my job as HR Director. Middle management tends to view the company through the narrow lens of their department's function within in it. The HR Director has the benefit of not only knowing the long-term goals of the company, but understanding and viewing the assets and problems of each department viewed through the lens of upper management. I'm privy to what goes on in upper management in a way that a department head isn't, and can be completely objective about who gets hired to work in your department in a way that you can't. I also know what they see as *your* strengths and weaknesses, and know whether or not you're seen as an asset, or not. I'm going to hire your replacement if it comes to that, and already have a file of potential candidates who fit the requirements of what upper management desires. That's the polite way of saying that in middle management, you're not as vital as you think your are, and can easily be replaced. 

What's far more likely in your first scenario above is that the managers who have the sole authority to hire their own employees are the ones who display self-interest and tend to hire people who are qualified for the "underling" position, nothing more, thus eliminating any sort of threat to *their own* position. It also tends to perpetuate cronyism, and at it's worst can create unfair and discriminatory hiring practices based on their own preferences and prejudices. 

Of course some middle managers want to hire the people *they* want and train to them to do the job exactly how they think it should be done. This insures their own job security. They tend, either consciously or unconsciously, to not hire people who have the education, experience, drive or amibition to challenge the manager's ideas, authority, or position.* You essentially end up with a work force of worker bees run by a micro-manager. While this is efficient in the short run, it doesn't bode well for any sort of long-term growth, fresh thinking, or innovation within the company. That department becomes stagnant. *Contrary to your thinking, this is precisely what *creates* turn over in a company: The "underlings" eventually see that there is no potential for advancement into management, and take their experience elsewhere. Meanwhile, the company has paid them benefits and provided on-the-job training to the benefit of the new employer. Thank you for providing them with the training and experience. You just saved my company a lot of money. (to the detriment of your own)


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

MsBossyPants said:


> I'm not in competition with middle management. The HR Directors postition is one that's actually between middle and upper management. Hiring people with inferior abilites that creates a revolving door effect doesn't insure job security for me. * I'm evaluated by upper managment for my ability to do just the opposite.* It's in my best interest to hire top quality managers and employees. Your comment about them "being promoted before me" makes no sense. I'm already working at a level above them. I *hire* middle mangement. Upper management , if not satisfied with my abilities will head-hunt a new Director of HR. I answer to them, not middle management.
> 
> Even in a smaller company, someone working in HR is held accountable for the quality of people they hire. It's not to their advantage to hire poorly skilled potential managers thinking that this will get them promoted above them. You're not giving upper management enough credit here, and not thinking far enough ahead from the perspective of the HR rep.
> 
> ...



This would only happen if the company had no outward expansion i.e. market growth. It is the short term markets that tend to be fixed, but with long term one can do about anything. In a company that has expanded near continuously for 61 years. Management tends to stay, because the near continuous expansion ensures promotions due to size alone. The only underlings that left were the lowest tier hourly workers, for which your theory works perfectly. On average, management, would be there at least 7 years with 15 years being the norm with 47 years being the maximum. 

Several things were left uncovered too.
The other unaddressed factor is that many people are satisfied with the station they reach in life! They find a good paying job, with comfortable hours, good work evirons and they stay. The only companies that have retention problems from that realization, are the Hostile Workplaces. The Corporate Culture of Cut-throating. If the corporate culture that emphasizes back stabbing and promotions at all cost, people will start acting like that, with huge turnover. If the Corporate Culture emphasizes consistent growth, with job satisfaction, things tend to be very different and work themselves out. 

Cookie cutter theories work for some businesses, but don't work for others. What the rule book says and what actually happens are two very different outcomes. It comes down to limitations, and what limitations will be foisted on a company by the ones who run it. Yet ironically enough it is Limitations that are Short Run. 

Personally I really enjoy long term success of decentralized companies, that understand that minimal bureaucracy saves a lot of money and headaches.


----------



## Hypaspist (Feb 11, 2012)

Edit - wrote something here, but it's not worth getting worked up over.


----------

