« IM at Work | Main | Find Your Passion at Work »
June 30, 2005
A Common Job Search Pitfall
Working at Monster, I have had the benefit of seeing the employment world from both a job seeker and an employer point of view. One of the complaints I hear most from employers is that they get thousands of resumes from unqualified seekers. This adds a lot of additional time to a corporate recruiter’s day, as he has to sift through the unqualified applicants to find the one or two hirable people. So why would job seekers submit their resumes for jobs they know they’ll never get?
I guess the feeling is, if you keep applying to any and every job, eventually someone might accidentally hire you -- even if you’re not qualified. Job boards make this even easier as it’s just a few clicks to apply, and after a few hours of searching, you can apply to hundreds of jobs. But is this effective? Probably not.
If you think you’re not qualified, most likely the employer will feel the same way. I think job seekers often feel that applying to more jobs gives them better odds, but that’s not exactly the best strategy. A better game plan is to find the right job opportunities and concentrate on creating the best resume and cover letter for that employer, highlighting the skills that the employer is looking for. Only apply to jobs you can really see yourself doing. Finding a job can take its toll, and you don’t want to waste your time on opportunities that aren’t right for you.
Share this post: Digg, StumbleUpon, del.icio.us, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
Posted by Jayme on June 30, 2005 at 11:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (44) | TrackBack (3)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515e7c69e200d834587a3569e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Common Job Search Pitfall:
» Be Realistic from Blue Sky Resumes Blog
On the Monster blog, Jayme has good advice for job seekers about being specific when looking for a job. He points out that recruiters are overwhelmed with applications and resent filtering through numerous resumes from people who clearly do not... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 5, 2005 12:57:32 PM
» The Resume Deluge from stone
Over at Monster Blog, they're owning up to the problem of free-to-apply job boards: One of the complaints I hear... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 7, 2005 11:26:49 AM
» Will Spamming Land You A Job? from Utah Tech Jobs
If you’re the right candidate for the job, by all means, submit away (plus call or write or FAX, too). But for every unrelated job you’re posting to, thousands of others are posting to the job you want as well. The only real effect here ... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 13, 2005 12:26:35 PM
Comments
How true. But many job seekers see themselves as "perfectly qualified even though I don't have x....", most often that x is the required degree. Jobseekers often see a degree requirement as an arbitrary desire that doesn't mean anything, and feel themselves qualified to apply without. Sometimes I agree.
I love it when I say 8-12 years of experience and get people who apply with 1.
Posted by: Tess | Jun 30, 2005 11:36:09 AM
My suggestion is t find out what companies have positions available that match your background and then see who you know at those companies in order to be referred in to the hiring manager.
Companies are flooded with resumes. Most of which are unqualified. I also feel that cover letters are a waste of time.
Get a referral and try not waste your time or anyone elses
Jason
recruiting.com
Posted by: Jason Davis | Jun 30, 2005 11:42:38 AM
As a professional currently searching for a better "fit", I look at job openings everyday. I am registered with most of the main job boards with Monster being the one I look forward to reviewing the most. I ONLY apply for jobs that I am qualified for (which appear to be plentiful). I too have been on the other end and get quite annoyed when I receive resumes from unqualified people. It almost makes you wonder if they can read!
However lately, I have had some concerns regarding recruiters and employment agencies. I think that sometimes their postings could be construed as unethical. 1.) I have noticed that the job boards have started listing postings from agencies that charge money for the ability to apply to their job openings. The job announcements do not state this and it is a waste of my time to sort through the openings, find those that I am interested in, go to the pages that describe the position, click APPLY and be taken to the recruiter's page which lists the fees. If that particular job happens to be a "FREE" one, it is around 2 weeks old. This is nothing more than the old "Bait and Switch" tactics of dishonest sales people. 2.) Same with keeping old job announcements on the boards to get you to apply and fill out pages of information only to tell you that the position is filled, but then ask you to come in for testing and an interview and maybe they will have something else for you! (Which actually is a rare occurance).
Most of the jobs listed on the boards are listed by recruiting companies, not employers. I can understand why the boards allow this (revenue), but as a job seeker, it is frustrating. Maybe this is why some job seekers apply for everything? It's bad enough that you rarely receive any kind of reply (except for "thank you for applying" after you spend the time to fill out and send all the required information, but you end up feeling like your education, experience and knowledge isn't worth much if even the recruiters ignore you.
I recently applied for a position that was on Monster and about 1 week later saw it advertised by a "FEE" recruiting company! Sure makes you want to run out and pay them for current job leads. I guess this is what our society has come to, as long as there are people out there with a need, there are others willing to exploit them for a buck. Gone are the days when an employer who needed to fill a position placed an ad, sorted through the many resumes, called in some for interviews and then choose the next new employee.
Too bad. These complaints that I have listed are the pitfalls I see in searching for a job in today's market.
Posted by: Rose | Jul 3, 2005 8:54:30 AM
Yes, and I have quit applying to those asking for a bachelor degree. I have over 15 years experience and an Associate Degree plus. Only few hours short of bachelor degree, still going to school. But then I hear people get the job that had absolutely no degree and less experience. It happens they just happen to know the right people.
Networking. I try my best. I go to professional meetings even served on a board. But no leads from any of them.
Am I loosing my confidence. You bet. I even fear after I finish school get that degree, still no word from these jobs. I think my age may now be a detterant. Most of these people getting the jobs are in their 20's. But who knows.
Posted by: Carol | Jul 5, 2005 12:23:57 PM
We have never run an outside ad to fill a position. It is our company policy to post an opening on our internal job posting website, yet, it is discouraged to "steal" a like employee from another operations center. We can promote from within, but, lateral moves are virtually unheard of.
Anyway, the point that I'm making, here is....it's ALL in "who you know". We "network" the various companies that we work with for "who do you know that might want a change?". And, voila, resumes appear on our fax machine from someone's friend, brother, sister, in-law, ex...you name it.
It has worked over and over again. So, if you're "networking" for a job....be sure you tell everyone that you know what you're looking for. You just may get referred!!
Posted by: Deborah | Jul 5, 2005 8:08:43 PM
I agree with the advice to seek out only jobs that can relate to your experience or desire. But as a veteran with 15 years of experience in industry that had a position that hired people there is way too much emphasis placed on work experience. Some of the best workers I ever hired (I am talking about professionals) had little to no experience. What they did have was a strong work ethic and a strong desire to learn. Let's face it, after 2 to 3 years you know your job. In todays job market I think that quality trait is overlooked because of all the third party hiring. Another reason for this flooded resume topic is because I still believe that the (good)job market is still soft. Some of the job listings to me are unrealistic in the clients desires. Many companies I believe look for the perfect employee because there is a large either (unemployed or underemployed) work force of good talented people out there.
Posted by: Robert | Jul 7, 2005 1:48:06 PM
Help! I started a new job appoximatley 6 months ago with a great company but I feel at this point like I am not fullfilling my responsibilities as well as expected. My supervisors are very overwhelmed with thier work and try thier best to help but just don't have the time to train me properly. I feel frustrated because I don't feel like I can do my job efficiently with out getting the proper training I need.
Posted by: Joanne | Jul 10, 2005 11:42:55 AM
This could start a whole new thread -- what do you (Joanne) consider "proper training"?
From a hirer's perspective, I expect someone to come in with all the background knowledge. I might have to spend a few hours showing you *our* software application, but face it, a spreadsheet is a spreadsheet; a search engine is a search engine. I expect I may have to teach you how we format reports, or how we record our time, but if it takes more than several hours over the period of a week to train you, you don't have the background I need.
Perhaps that is unrealistic. I'd like to see a dialog on how much is expected.
Posted by: Tess | Jul 11, 2005 3:14:13 PM
Regarding Tess' post, "if it takes more than several hours over the period of a week to train you, you don't have the background I need." If your new hire already knows everything there is to know about the job, I can't help but think they'll be moving on soon. Certainly you want an employee to get up to speed rapidly, but also not to become bored quickly. If there's nothing to learn, then the new hire shouldn't stay long if he/she wants to expand their skills.
Posted by: Ellen | Jul 12, 2005 3:09:23 PM
This is some of the best info that I've come across since I've been looking for work for almost two months. I've applied for nearly 15 jobs that I know my qualifications more than meet the requirements as posted but no reply. I've used virtually every search engine available, to include monster, but as of today no job. The thing is that I'm a U.S. Air Force Paralegal Technician-retired, Vietnam Veteran, and my last employeed position was as a Corporate/National Security Account Manager. It is so frustrating to have a mountain of knowledge/skills, as a Security Specialist/Manager, and no one is interested enough even to offer an interview. This is in particular taking into consideration the world affairs relative to Security. I faithfully served my country, with pride/commitment, for 20 years, then worked another 16 years in the private sector-working myself up from the ground floor to management. Now should I've not answered the call to duty I wonder what my faith would be today. Finally, I too have noticed that some job boards lists job openings from agencies that charge money for the ability to apply to their job openings. Ethical?
Posted by: Charles Boyd | Jul 12, 2005 3:40:15 PM
As a recent university graduate I commonly come across job posting that specify- "3-5 years experience". While I only have one year, if I cannot apply to those positions there is nothing else out there!
I understand that an executive level posotion would be out of my league at this point, however 3-5 years expereince may be as well!
I can't get experience because no one will hire me, and no one will hire me because I don't have any experience! It's a never ending search for the one that will be interested in an entry level candidate...
Posted by: Janie | Jul 12, 2005 4:26:39 PM
If a candidate has the EXACT experience that the job requires- then the candidate probably is't looking to learn more and enhance their career- they're probably just applying for a job where they will be doing the exact same thing as they are currently doing, except that the "new" job would have better compensation. Who would you rather hire...someone who can hit the ground running with little to no training (even if this person sees the job in terms of dollar signs), or someone who requires more training but is willing to work hard and learn and do more than they are currently doing?
Now- I don't have any HR experience (and believe me, I have been reminded of it during several job interviews), but one thing I learned while pursuing my Master's degree in Human Resources is that employees are investments- if it were me doing the hiring, I'd choose the employee with less knowledge/experience even though it would mean training that person more. Chances are that he/she is not scared of a challenge and is continually striving to do more.
Posted by: Paulette | Jul 12, 2005 4:48:19 PM
Janie,
Face it, we Generation Xers (although highly educated and motivated) will be waiting tables until the baby boomers retire- I personally think alot of people are threatened by our young educated minds...hang in there...you're not alone :)
Posted by: Mel | Jul 12, 2005 4:58:37 PM
I have known many employees with the right experience for the job that DO continue to learn and grow with the company. I have been in recruiting and personnel since 1986, and can tell you that people applying for jobs they are not qualified for become a MAJOR aggravation to recruiters.
It also can hurt your future chances at other positions that you ARE qualified for. I happen to remember names very well, and if someone applied for a job that they obviously knew they were not qualified for, I would often recognize the name if they applied for another position. It was completely UNimpressive and would often make me think that they did not even read the requirements.
Posted by: christine | Jul 12, 2005 5:07:16 PM
It wouldn't be so bad if it they had at least one year of directly related experience. Frequently, I get the candidate, for example, that sees the word technician, in an Environmental Technician position, and believes he/she is a technician therefore he/she should apply. Although most are PC Technicians and Electronic Technicians applying to an Environmental Technician position requiring some environmental experience! This is why I do not post, I search for what I want. Posting is always my last resort and is usually not worth the costs.
Posted by: Amber | Jul 12, 2005 11:08:44 PM
I'm with you. I have been searching for a job for the last six months and I rarely get the courtesy of an interview. Many of these jobs have no listed requirements. Customer service jobs would be a snap for me as every job I have ever had involves dealing with customers! It is ridiculous. All I am looking for is a job that I can survive on and support my child on. It often seems like my single mother status is a problem since it is so often mentioned. Help!
Posted by: Jennifer | Jul 13, 2005 9:35:38 AM
The remark about "wondering if they can read" is pretty spot-on. I am a pharmacy director. Periodically I have to hire Pharmacy Technicians. I seldom have an "entry level" opening for a Technician (those can be filled by untrained individuals who can get OJT, and then meet certification and licensing requirements after 6 months to 1 year on the job). The job advertisements state specifically that the applicant must be CERTIFIED (by an national certification body, the Pharmacy Technician Certification Board, or "PTCB") as well as REGISTERED with the state board of Pharmacy. And, since these are not entry level positions, I generally specify at least 2 years of experience, sometimes more, depending on the specific position.
I cannot begin to tell you how many applications I get from people who are neither registered nor certified as Pharmacy Technician in this state (it's very easy for me to check). For that matter, many of them have never even set foot inside a pharmacy, at least not as an employee!
I'm willing to be flexible about "years of experience" if the person demonstrates in an interview that they have the basic skill and knowledge set, but I can't very well "fudge" on the certification and registration requirements, as they legal requirements which are beyond my control.
I have no trouble teaching a Pharmacy Technician how to do the job at this particular pharmacy. The investment almost always pays off handsomely. I do resent having to read resumes of folks who don't even meet the legal requirements of the job.
As an aside, it occurs to me that while not everyone is going to be "college material", it might behoove high school graduates (and dropouts, for that matter) to pursue technical training in whatever field appeals to them (health care is burgeoning, but so are lots of other fields). The nice thing about technical training is that you can "sidestep" the requriments of a bachelor's degree that have nothing to do with your field (English composition and rhetoric, history, political science, etc) at least until you decide if you like the field and want to pursue a degree program for advancement purposes.
Posted by: Ann | Jul 13, 2005 9:48:16 AM
Why do people apply for jobs they can never get? For the same reason people who can't sing wait in line for days to get on American Idol. Either they don't have an adequate assessment of their own skills, or they hope some type of a miracle will happen
Posted by: Ernest | Jul 13, 2005 2:41:06 PM
I agree with most that applying for a job that you are not qualified for is a waste of people's time. A lot of companies will also say "or equivilent experience". If they are not remotely close to the position than they have no business applying.
But on the flip side of that i'm sure that a lot of companies will "shoot for the stars" when advertising a position. Of course they will want the most qualified person that they can find but will often have settle for less than what they were wanting just because they can not find that "one" person. This would be a reason that many people apply for positions that are a little over their heads.
Posted by: Rudy | Jul 13, 2005 2:52:53 PM
Paulette, I disagree a little bit. If the candidate has the exact experience required, I can expect that candidate to do the job accurately and properly, and then help that person to grow to the next level or pay band or career-ladder step.
Maybe that's a function of my company and my philosophy. I do hope the person moves on in a year or two -- to a higher position in my company for which I've groomed him/her. And I'm always up front about the person who wants to do the same job for the next 10 years -- better and better and better -- while they won't get big bumps in compensation, they'll get COL increases and raises that recognize their value to mentoring those with less experience.
Posted by: Tess | Jul 13, 2005 4:09:59 PM
Most of those employers are lousy at writing the job requirements and specifying what they are looking for.
Posted by: Ron | Jul 13, 2005 4:33:57 PM
I applied for a position that said that the candidate must know Adobe Pagemaker. I didn't... but I did know Quark Xpress which does the same thing. When I applied, I mentioned in my cover letter that while I did not know the software, I did know Quark and was willing to learn Adobe. I was called for an interview the next day and had the job by the following Friday. Turns out, Quark was just as good, he didn't care either way.
I guess you just have to use your judgement on how far they might be willing to stretch if you fit all of the other qualifications. In my case they were looking for someone proficient in MS Excel and had desktop publishing skills which is hard combination to find, I think.
Posted by: Coni | Jul 14, 2005 8:49:36 AM
Do people who carry the name recruiters actually do any of the recruiting anymore. I think that they simply post, wait for thousands of resumes to come in. Then "generate" return messages/notes that say the same thing to every candidate.
T
hey have a message generator for the work.
Come on, now! What kind of recruiting is that?
Redtailedhawk
Posted by: REdtailedhawk | Jul 14, 2005 10:35:40 AM
Who cares about the recruiters? They hire whoever they want. Qualifications don't matter.
I have been out of work for 11 months, have several versions of my resume and 16 years of work experience in education, testing and assessment, non-profit program administration, and horticulture which have all given me many transferable skills. I have an ivy league degree and have heard EVERY excuse about why I am "not right" for the position.
More insultingly, positions get filled and recruiters don't inform the unsuccessful candidates. At Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn, NY, the person who was the leading candidtate (employed by the college) actually sat in on my interview. I got jerked around by the interviewer for several weeks until he changed his cell phone number. They hired their friend.
Posted by: Paul | Jul 14, 2005 10:47:47 AM
It seems as though there are some very common themes here that frustrate many job seekers. Here's my experience and recommendations (I'll use "bullets" to keep it simple):
* Have been looking for over a year
* Experience level of 12-15 years
* Broad skill base, yet I get "pigeon holed" because of specific skills - military background
* Have used job boards, company web sites, internal recruiters, external recruiters, "pay search" websites, and even outplacement
CONCERNS:
* Large job boards are just like mass-distribution resume sites/firms and outplacement companies
* Too many people apply for jobs (qualified and unqualified)
REALITIES:
* I have gotten more "hits" from not applying for jobs posted on job boards or pay sites - instead I ensure my resume is posted and updated (in fact, I have NOT received a single interview to a job I've posted for via a job board or pay site)
* Utilizing company web sites is good, yet for bigger companies the same issues apply as to job sites - in one instance, an internal recruiter that contacted me from a large bank about my posted resume on Monster told me that they receive "thousands" of applicants for each job posted to their website. Most go looking for people instead of wading through the web apps
* There are thousands of external recruiters that are looking for specific skill sets -- HIGHLIGHT these on your resume so that wherever they look for postings, they can find you. Most recruiters use recruiting software to do "key word" searches -- this is how I've been found 80% of the time. Get in with recruiters and see if they can help you "network" in your field. Most recruiters know others and exchange candidates to help fit the jobs they are looking to fill.
* I recommend NOT using outplacement firms or mass-resume distribution. Companies HATE these and typically delete what they receive because there are so many.
CAUTIONS:
* On the skill set issue and being pigeon holed - ensure that you highlight the skills you want to be hired for not the things you don't desire to do. I made that mistake early on and got many "hits" during my initial search. In six job interviews early on I found that #1 it wasn't what I expected, #2 wasn't what I wanted to do, and #3 only focused on a small set of my skills. Two places of fault - first, I should have "directed" my resume better to what I was looking for and second should have never gone on an interview without first exploring and completely understanding the role -- it was the excitement of the opportunities that blinded me.
* Recruiters (Internal and External): some of the previous posters won't like this but I have first hand experience here. BE CAUTIOUS! Some recruiters are phenomenal at getting to the core of what is needed for a position, finding good candidates and doing excellent prep work prior to interviews. Others, unfortunately, are just plain "flesh merchants". A good number of recruiters I've worked with find me then get me the interview but do nothing more. Some are horrible at communication which requires you to do too much of the work. Retained recruiters seem to be the best overall.
BOTTOM LINE:
* Your resume is your most important attribute. Make sure it's accurate, clear, and highlights what you want it to.
* Post your resumes on jobs board and make them "public" so companies and recruiters can find you.
* Don't set the wrong expectation that because you have the skill set the posted job is looking for, that you'll get a follow up.
* Stick to bigger job sites to post your resume.
* If you know of companies you'd like to work for, check out their websites first before applying for the same job on other sites.
* NETWORK, NETWORK, NETWORK! I have had more "hits" in the past month then in the past year because I have networked with friends and former employees and even recruiters I liked to worked with. I did almost no networking in the first 11 months.
* Above all else, don't get frustrated. Some people land jobs in days or weeks. Most take months. You’re at the mercy of the company search.
Posted by: Matt | Jul 14, 2005 11:40:19 AM
Post a comment
Career Advice
Categories
Recent Posts
- How to Positively Leverage the Changes in Job Search Techniques
- Finding the Right Job or the Right Job Just Now?
- Top 6 Things Missing in Life Due to My Job Search Bubble Existence
- The Top 5 Worst Pieces of Advice Given to Me During My Job Search
- What's Keeping Me Up at Night During This Job Search?
- Getting Back in the Interviewing Groove
- How to Balance Summer Fun and Your Job Hunt
- Managing Expectations in Terms of Timing for the Job Search
- How to Handle the Most Frequently Noted Misconception About Being Unemployed
- Missed Moments in Networking and What You Can Learn from Them
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |