Job Hunting

Been out there - looking for work and marvelling at the progress that has been made in HR recruiting since I worked in HR some decades ago.



First, there are the keywords. The job posting lists many things, and you have to make sure as many as possible are spelled out in your resume.



For instance, a job posting for a government position required some knowledge of fundraising. The HR consultant for the government did not understand that being the general manager of a registered federal charity for 7 years meant a background in fundraising. Because the word "fundraising" did not appear there, the HR consultant didn't see this as one of my qualifications. The fact that the position being advertised did not include any fundraising wasn't considered a valid point. Strike one.



Then there was the question of experience and knowledge of the film/television industry. The HR consultant read in my cover letter that I had some knowledge of the issues facing that industry, but he couldn't see that reflected in my resume. This is because he didn't know what it meant that I was on the local ACTRA council for 4 years, that I had worked on promotions for several television productions, and that I had even been in a few as an actor. It seems this particular HR consultant couldn't see that this meant I knew many of the people in the industry. Strike two.



And then there was project management - although the HR consultant said he was able to infer that I might have some project management experience related to the non-profit sector, it wasn't clear. So a university certificate in non-profit management, seven years producing concerts, more than a decade as a publisher, and many years as a theatre producer and director, and teaching Project Lead at MacEwan for 3 years - from these he was only able to "infer" that I had project management experience. Strike three.



Were these strikes against me? No. They were strikes against an HR system which allows a consultant to disengage from their critical faculties and just scan for key words. That's what he told me he did - scanned for the key words.



Now, the bio of the successful applicant for that job showed up in my e-mail. Nothing about fundraising, far less experience in publishing than me, some experience teaching in post-secondary institutions (not unlike mine), and not a word about any connection to the film industry. Probably the successful applicant had all the keywords in their cover letter so the HR consultant didn't have to think too much - certainly didn't have to compare this lesser-qualified applicant to me. I hadn't even gotten an interview.



So the next time I dealt with that department, I not only included the keywords but I highlighted them in red, just to help the HR consultant along. It worked! I got an interview.



And the interview was long and fairly thorough, although the three members of the interview panel showed some impatience because time was tight. They asked questions that required complex answers, but they hadn't allowed time for complex answers.



After my interview, one of the questions kept nagging at me. I felt the time crush had meant the focus of my answer was not exactly what I would have liked it to be. So I sent a brief e-mail to the HR consultant and gave a 3-point message of clarification. In response, I got an e-mail saying the interview panel was unable to consider any information outside the interview.



Unable? Well, no. It's one of those new HR policies. So the job won't necessarily go to the thoughtful person who does follow-up, but to the person who scores the most hits on the tick boxes in the interview. And I already knew I'd blown it over PowerPoint. I don't use PowerPoint. Too often it is badly used - like transparencies except you don't write on them. PowerPoint seemed very important to the panel. The fact that I work in a variety of computer programs, including having done design work, word processing, spread sheets, databases, html coding, and have been the bookkeeper for organizations using Simply Accounting, Quicken and QuickBooks - well, those don't fit in the tickbox. So even if PowerPoint is not particularly hard to use, and I could and would use it if required, I will have a bad mark in that tickbox while someone with inferior computer skills who says "Oh, I'm proficient in PowerPoint!" will be seen as more competent and qualified.



Again, the HR consultant doesn't want to have to think about the candidates as individuals, each uniquely qualified. It's about filling in the tickboxes from the application and the interview. Does this approach yield better results? Yes and no. It streamlines the process for HR, making it easier for them. They don't have to use analytical skills, don't have to have prior knowledge of the field, and don't have to make judgment calls - the tickboxes are quantifiable. But it works against finding the best candidate.



The position which was open was an executive position. PowerPoint should be the least of their worries. And a candidate who follows up with prompt and concise clarification of a point he thinks may have been misinterpreted - well, that's what they should be paying attention to, because that's the kind of person they need in the job.



Every time out I learn a little more. If I were unprincipled, I would land a fabulous job for which I am only marginally qualified by crafting my responses to exactly what they want to hear. In the meantime, the jobs for which I would have been a terrific fit have gone to people who learned that game faster than I did - and all the more power to them.