Follow-Up After Interview
-
@thwr said in Follow-Up After Interview:
Be a little more patient and call them in one or two weeks.
If you feel the urge to do this, I encourage you to instead "black list them" and don't consider an offer even if they make it. Patience and call backs might get you the job, but they also essentially guarantee that you will be sorry that you got it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Follow-Up After Interview:
@thwr said in Follow-Up After Interview:
Large enterprises tend to react slower
I found the opposite. Big ones are the most likely to be "on the spot" and "even if there is no specific opening" because they have the resources to do so and can't let a good person walk out the door. They know that the cost of interviewing is staggering and that missing a good candidate because you wanted, even an hour, is a killer to profits.
Crappy companies of any size will be bad at this. Being crappy makes them bad at it, doing it makes them crappy. It's a cycle.
There are exceptions. The company I'm talking about is great and ppl love to work there. Payment is great, pension is great, you got great career options... I could go on like this for quiet some time. But you have to "survive" HR.
Long story short: The world isn't just black and white.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Follow-Up After Interview:
@thwr said in Follow-Up After Interview:
One example is a well known European aviation company: Can take them three or four months to get back to you.
Perfect example. by definition, no one but desperate, otherwise unemployable people work there.
That's simply not true
-
I actually totally forgot about an interview I had with a place and they called me, and was like "hey sorry are you showing up?"
To which I of course replied, "i'm totally sorry, I forgot about this and can't make it"
They rescheduled and I had a great interview.
Desperation never works.
-
@Fredtx said in Follow-Up After Interview:
@thwr This is indeed a European company with branches in U.S, Canada, and Mexico. I will still continue to seek other opportunities as they come along with keeping my patience.
European hiring tends to be far worse. I prefer Europe to the US in nearly every aspect, but healthy large companies isn't one of them. European companies tend to be even more bloated and take professionalism less seriously. There is a reason that pay scales tend to be lower. There are great companies everywhere, and bad ones everywhere. The US tends to work you way harder, Europe tends to have better benefits. But when it comes to "being allowed to act professionally and work to the best of your ability and do your job rather than playing politics", the US is a leader. We take "taking our jobs seriously" in a way that pretty much only Mexico mirrors.
-
@thwr said in Follow-Up After Interview:
@scottalanmiller said in Follow-Up After Interview:
@thwr said in Follow-Up After Interview:
One example is a well known European aviation company: Can take them three or four months to get back to you.
Perfect example. by definition, no one but desperate, otherwise unemployable people work there.
That's simply not true
How is it not true? If people are willing to accept work after waiting for months, that alone could define them as desperate. The employer didn't pass the loosest of interviews, and yet they accept the job anyway. There is very, very little more than a company could do to make it crystal clear that hiring good people is not in any way a priority. Why would anyone not desperate want to work in a company where they know everyone else is all people who went through that process, had the company fail so totally in its hiring, and then decided to take the job anyway?
It's not just that the company failed its part of the interview. But it also tells you that everyone else is someone you would question wanting to have has your coworkers. Not that they aren't nice people, but that they are all people willing to accept such a staggeringly bad job offer.
-
@thwr said in Follow-Up After Interview:
There are exceptions. The company I'm talking about is great and ppl love to work there. Payment is great, pension is great, you got great career options... I could go on like this for quiet some time. But you have to "survive" HR.
Ah, but you leave out one key thing: the job. Sure, the pay has to be great, the pensions have to be great, because how would they hire otherwise?
And if you look at some of the worst places to work in America, take Wegmans Family Markets in NY as an example, they constantly rank as a "Top 3 Places to Work in America." Yet if you go there, it's a pit of despair. How can this be?
Because... they literally only hire the dregs, the desperate. Every single employee that they have is thankful that someone employed them because they are otherwise mostly unemployable. It's an insanely depressing place to work. It's unprofessional, it's incompetent, it's almost abusive at times. Yet people, being thankful that they have A job, constantly rank it as a place that they love to work, because the alternative is starvation, not because the alternative [to them] is another job.
It's easy to say that the other benefits are there. But we didn't say that they weren't. What I said was that it's a bad job that hires a pool of desperate people. People who are likely to struggle finding other work, people who are willing to work with a less than middling base of professionals, people who were on the market unable to find an acceptable job for months and jumped at a job that doesn't care about who they hire.
No matter how much they try to make up for it, it's hard to claim that the people that they hire aren't desperate, because by definition, accepting the job requires a level of desperation.
Don't get me wrong, everyone is desperate sometimes. It's not some condemnation of those people. But an employer that is intentionally hiring people in that state, and only in that state, is designed around getting people that have little ability to leave, and are going to be pretty much the bottom of the barrel. Good people will sneak through sometimes, because even good people are sometimes desperate. But there is a big difference between being desperate once in a while, and building a hiring practice to filter out anyone who isn't.
-
@thwr said in Follow-Up After Interview:
Long story short: The world isn't just black and white.
If life has taught me anything, it's that it is way more black and white than people like to think. Often, when we think things aren't black and white, it's that there's something else we are missing.
For example, I'd put dollars to donuts that you were expecting that a pool of only desperate people would find the job to be unsatisfactory, not be paid well, or not have good benefits. But in reality, we expect a place that only hires desperate people to actually have people like it. Why? Because instead of being the one desperate person in a place full of non-desperate people, they are with others in the same boat, it makes them feel better. The expectations for performance are low, so if you don't like what you do or aren't good at it, no one is really expecting you to be good, they went so far out of their way to make sure the best people weren't available when they made an offer.
This is where things get interesting. Desperate or low performing people, or those that don't like their careers, are going to love shops like this, or government work in the US, for example. It's designed around that. But people who love their careers, excel at them, want to do a good job will think that those jobs sound like hell.
I think it really is black and white, the people that are taking those jobs are desperate (or looking to be in a desperate pool so that it is extra easy to appear competent.) It's not for top performers, it's not even for middling performers. It's a place for the "just getting by". And by having all of the "just getting by" in one place, it's easy to design a company around that to make those people like their jobs. But they like getting paid to be not very valuable, rather than being paid to be actually useful.
Lockheed would be a perfect example in the US. People whose ethics are flexible enough to make them feel okay while working there tend to love the job? Why? Because they focus on hiring incompetent people and having them do nothing, because they earn their money by being bodies in seats. LM literally doesn't want highly productive people, because they are primarily paid to be part of the dole / welfare system and not to produce anything. From a professional perspective, it's unthinkably bad. Ethically, it's unconscionable. But as far as pay/work ratio, it's a gold mine. It doesn't pay like a serious engineering shop, but the work load pretty much doesn't exist. So much so, that they have whole departments of people with no training labeled as engineers and it is mostly little old ladies who don't even know what the project is that they are assigned to. LM just needs people with degrees sitting in seats keeping them warm and the US gov't pays them to sit there because it looks good to Congress to employ so many people who are, quite by definition, desperate (and morally flexible.)
-
@thwr maybe we need to be more clear...
There is "job desperate" and there is "professionally desperate."
One could take a lazy, nothing to do gov't job, for example, and not be job desperate. It could be something that they actually want. But they'd be "career desperate", because they are lucky to have gotten employed at all [in their field.]
The two are separate. Someone who is career desperate will easily desire a job that no one who isn't career desperate would be willing to accept.
It's professional / career desperate that I'm talking about.
-
Case in point, I once took a job that called me back after six months. I actually had worked a contract in between and had forgotten about the company. I took it. I liked the job a lot, the people were great, it was in the right location, I hard balled them on the deal, they served me whisky at work, I had an office the size of a master bedroom in a mansion, I had a private entrance, I was on a top square right by the capital building in Washington DC, I answered to no one and had the run of the place and set my own hours.
The company also had no plan, no clue, and was bankrupt in 90 days. I was the last person to get paid, as I was the only one with the clout to get a solid contract. Everyone still employed after me kept working without pay, and never got paid.
Here are the facts...
- Where they nice people? Yes
- Where they competent or serious about their hiring? No
- Did their HR/hiring process reflect this? Yes
- Was I desperate to take the job? Yes, 100%, absolutely.
- Was I happy that I took it and did I enjoy my time there? Yes, but personally, not professionally.
The job was basically a well paid vacation. The only thing about it that worked out for me was the soft stuff... it was good pay at a time when I was desperate, it was in a handy location, and they didn't care that I was running another company on the "side". I was the least desperate person they had and that gave me leverage, but it came at a time where I was honestly desperate. I was early in my career, lacked a resume, and was running lean and risky trying to fund my own start up venture.
But professionally, the job was a dud. I learned essentially nothing, it was a cake walk. It was actually a step down from other things I was doing, by a lot. But I needed the stable work.
The whole thing only worked because I was ambitious (but desperate) and they didn't get in my way of pursuing dramatically more professional activities with my start up. But absolutely, no matter how you slice or dice it, taking the job was a bit of professional desperation at a time where legitimately, I was desperate for income.
And it was really obvious, everyone that I worked with was desperate for work, too. It was a start up and they only hired the people that couldn't find other work in every area. No one working there was reasonably employable and all were happy to have something, no one took it because it was a dream job. Their hiring system filtered out the non-desperate, and it played out as expected. But that's what they needed, only the desperate were affordable to them.
-
@scottalanmiller I'm starting to see how European companies definitely don't focus on professionalism. When I spoke to HR, I asked for the benefits such as Health Insurance and such. She didn't even have that content with her and only told me what she knew from the top of her head. She was also remote (in Mexico) via video conference. I asked if she could email me the document with all the details and she said I would get it with the offer. I thought that was very odd as I even had a company's recruiter email me such details before I even did the phone interview with the hiring manager, which in a previous case I decided not to move forward with onsite interview due to the high cost of health insurance. Another thing, is they took me out for lunch before the interview, which I've never experienced before which I'm sure most of you have.
Besides the oddness, there is some cons. The pay will be about 15K more a year than what I currently make (below market value) at my company, It will be 5 min away from my home, there is some technology that I will learn that I don't have experience with. Also, I would get experience being in-house IT as I don't have that and don't know what it's like (might be good, might be bad,idk). It is very interesting on your details about what's good hiring and bad hiring.
-
@Fredtx said in Follow-Up After Interview:
I'm starting to see how European companies definitely don't focus on professionalism. When I spoke to HR, I asked for the benefits such as Health Insurance and such. She didn't even have that content with her and only told me what she knew from the top of her head. She was also remote (in Mexico) via video conference. I asked if she could email me the document with all the details and she said I would get it with the offer. I thought that was very odd as I even had a company's recruiter email me such details before I even did the phone interview with the hiring manager, which in a previous case I decided not to move forward with onsite interview due to the high cost of health insurance.
Well THAT stuff just sounds like a bad company, lol. Definitely lots of European companies that you'd love to work for, overall.
-
@Fredtx said in Follow-Up After Interview:
there is some cons. The pay will be about 15K more a year than what I currently make (below market value) at my company, It will be 5 min away from my home, there is some technology that I will learn that I don't have experience with.
Those are the cons?
-
@Fredtx said in Follow-Up After Interview:
It is very interesting on your details about what's good hiring and bad hiring.
I was a hiring advisor on Wall St (and still do some.) Using good hiring practices to build the best teams was one of my specialties
-
@Fredtx said in Follow-Up After Interview:
Also, I would get experience being in-house IT as I don't have that and don't know what it's like (might be good, might be bad,idk).
MSP now?
-
@Fredtx said in Follow-Up After Interview:
Another thing, is they took me out for lunch before the interview, which I've never experienced before which I'm sure most of you have.
That's pretty common. Or more common for me, as a break in the middle.
-
-
@scottalanmiller said in Follow-Up After Interview:
@Fredtx said in Follow-Up After Interview:
there is some cons. The pay will be about 15K more a year than what I currently make (below market value) at my company, It will be 5 min away from my home, there is some technology that I will learn that I don't have experience with.
Those are the cons?
Pretty much.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Follow-Up After Interview:
@Fredtx said in Follow-Up After Interview:
Also, I would get experience being in-house IT as I don't have that and don't know what it's like (might be good, might be bad,idk).
MSP now?
Basically. Not officially a full msp due to a lot of politics and the fact that we’re a fortune 300 company that does other things besides IT. IT was just a service the company decided to add in in addition to the other services and products they sell to their customers. Honestly, IT is not even their money maker.
I’m one of the senior technicians here and it’s time to move on and grow. Should have left a long time ago, but it’s better late than never.
-
@Fredtx said in Follow-Up After Interview:
I’m one of the senior technicians here and it’s time to move on and grow. Should have left a long time ago, but it’s better late than never.
Also good for professional growth... MangoCon!
And it's local, no excuses.
