Comments: The Dark Side Of The Employer’s Market

{35 notes} home

Erica says:August 18, 2011 at 5:31 pm

I have been through the stressful and chaotic experience of interviewing and job searching and had very similar and even worse stories than are in this blog. Job searching is brutal. That being said, I was shocked to read that my former employer was in this blog because I think they were the best experience I have had as far as interviewing goes. I was an intern at Molina Healthcare in the public relations department, and just as an intern I went through several separate interviews. I gained so much insight toward what it means to be prepared for an interview after my experience at Molina.

At the time, I thought going through a case study with the VP of marketing was pretty intense for an interview, but it really prepared me for my internship at the company. Having difficult interviews just shows the company is investing in finding the best talent, and it gives the interviewee an idea of what a typical task would be at the company. The whole goal of a case study or test (as noted in this blog) is for the company to see how the interviewee thinks and why they have chosen to take a certain plan of action. Molina Healthcare was the place I personally grew the most out of all of my internship experiences and I was there for just the summer.

After a long time of job searching myself, I found a job and am now working at a real estate company on the staffing and administrative team. Now that I have seen what a day in the employer’s shoes is like, I have a new outlook for the interviewing process. It is just as difficult for the employer as it is for the interviewer. It’s actually more frustrating on the employer side. I’m not trying to play devil’s advocate, but I think it is important to remember the employer’s side of the story especially in such a tight job market.

Elle says: 
August 24, 2011 at 10:54 am

Hi Erica thanks for your response on the article I appreciate your feedback. That being said I’d like to address some of the points that you have brought up.

Whilst I understand that perhaps your experience with your former employer was positive, it does not change the experience that the candidate that I have mentioned in the post’s experience. Not every candidate is going to have the experience that you have had.

Fact of the matter is, the process by which a company acquires an intern is no doubt going to drastically differ from a candidate who is applying for a senior position. Keep in mind this: the person in question has a great deal of professional experience, which includes going on interviews, and this is the impression that they got from their personal experience with the company. In addition, this is someone that operates at a senior level -often well seasoned professionals have a greater deal of perspective. This is not to discount your positive experience in any way, it’s great that you got so much out of it. However I’d like to point out that this person has formed their opinion of your former employer based on years of professional experience in both hiring and being hired.

In your case, you mentioned that you thought a case study was intense -when really it’s quite the standard practice. The candidate in question’s experience was not characterised by the ‘difficult process’ but by these problems: a) Appearance of disorganisation b) lack of professional etiquette and c) Rude behaviour. As the article points out, as a company that is prospecting for talent it is your job to present an accurate picture of what life in the company is like. If disorganisation, lack of professional etiquette and rude behaviour are evident to a candidate -it indicates that their professional life in the workplace is going to be characterised by these factors. As any communications professional will tell you, bad communications practices are often symptomatic of larger organisational issues. Furthermore, there is a way to accurately and effectively ‘test’ your candidates without belittling them.

As for your comment that it’s ‘more frustrating on the employer side’ I would have to disagree with you. I could point out that you are biased because you are on that side now -but you could just as easily point out that I’m biased because I was a job hunter that was applying for jobs. However, I have had to be in the seat you are in before, and I agree it is difficult -but I would hardly stretch to say it’s ‘more frustrating’. If it is your job to look for qualified candidates, it means it is your job to handle it in an effective manner and represent your company’s brand.

The fact is? in this economy, it is an employers market. That means there are a great more deal of candidates. Does it mean more work for recruiters because they have more to sift through? Absolutely. It’s time consuming and frustrating. However, it doesn’t change the fact that many employers are taking advantage of the latter by trying to squeeze more out of candidates for less money.

On the most basic level having a job means that you can meet your bills, put food on the table etc, things that are essential to living. Not having a job means you can do none of those things, or are severely limited in doing so. That’s like saying that it’s more difficult to make it to the soup kitchen twice a week to hand out food, than it is for the people that go hungry day in and day out.

It’s quite careless to say that the difficulty in finding the right candidate it is somehow comparable to not being able to do the things that you have to to survive. Yes, having a job is difficult, but it’s still your job, you still have money coming in, you still are able to pay your bills on time and feed yourself. This is why it’s important to streamline hiring practices, so as not to waste your time or a candidates.

Congrats on your job though, and I wish you all the best. If you have any more questions or comments, feel free to direct it to my blog.

35 Notes

  1. ellecommunicates posted this
blog comments powered by Disqus