Recently I read an interesting blog post by a guy who was evidently venting his frustrations as a hiring manager about why 99% of candidates will never get hired.
It was admittedly a little cynical but there was much of value and some real, practical insight clearly borne of experience and intended to inform and help candidates NOT do the things that will land them in the “no” pile before even a pre-screen.
The comments on the post were fascinating – a rant from the opposite perspective, followed by many others piling on, reviling the original writer and employers in general, basically wishing everything from misery to a terminal case of boils from head to foot.
Why so much frustration in both directions? How come there is so much misunderstanding and in many cases downright animosity between two groups who really need each other? Isn’t there a better way than trench warfare?
I couldn’t get the post, and the comments, out of my mind; and kept asking myself if there was a universal concept that would work for both sides in the hiring process. Plus, if you add in an outside recruiter, there are at least three parties really – and sometimes candidates’ uncooperative spouses or families, and politically motivated stakeholders at the hiring company, add even more divergent points of view.
So is there a single unifying principle that, if applied can really be useful to all parties?
I think so.
First – faith. What I mean in this context is that you HAVE TO believe that the right person is out there, the right job is out there, the right company is out there. That’s not being naive or cliched. It’s serious – too many people on all sides fall into cynicism and that often poisons what might actually be a promising opportunity. We’re all human beings, and the tendency to stereotype the “other side” will be felt as acutely by them as it will by you. And none of us responds well to that feeling. So even if the process is taking a while, it’s essential not to fall into the mental trap that expects a negative outcome. If you are looking for reasons to fault the other side, you will surely find them. Every single search I do requires the faith that the right match exists somewhere and it’s just a matter of finding it. If I lose that belief I cannot succeed. Conversely, an intentional, pro-active choice to remain in a positive state of mind allows ideas to flow and opportunities to become visible.
Second – hope. It’s closely related to faith but it has a different twist, perhaps the more personal angle: faith means I believe the right solution exists; hope means I am actively looking for it, expecting it, seeking it out and doing something to bring it about. Hope isn’t a tentative, cautious word here – it’s a robust, powerful and action-filled word. It’s putting movement behind your faith. Your communications all have not just objective content but also tone, and that’s where you can feel the positive or negative attitude. Hope is a positive attitude that’s attractive. You can feel the can-do power even in a short email or cover note; or in a brief communication about a potential hiring decision. Equally, the opposite is the kiss of death to a deal. It might seem small – but deals and hiring decisions in particular are, as I am fond of saying, sensitive plants; and you have to avoid even small cold draughts. Check up on yourself and you might be surprised what tone has crept into your communications. It takes continual attention to ensure you remain hopeful. Depending on the extent to which the outcome matters to you, it is worth evaluating closely. If you are a hiring manager, then a delay in hiring might not impact your life terribly – but it might impact your work satisfaction, the attitude of your team, your end of year results, or a hundred other things. Hope brings the possibilities back into focus. It’s worth paying attention to. And if you’re on the other side of the table, looking for a new position, then much more is at stake and paying close attention to attitude and tone is absolutely essential.
Third – clarity. It’s a bad pun but hopefully it got your attention. Because really, it’s critical, and lack of clarity in communication kills more opportunities than you may have ever realized. And all parties on the deal are equally at risk. I could probably talk for longer than you’d listen (in fact I’m *sure* I could talk for longer than you’d listen) about stories of hiring companies whose job descriptions gave me NO IDEA WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR – and no idea what the person would actually do in the darn job anyway. And there are just as many resumes and emails written by six-figure executives where it’s impossible for me to figure out what the heck they have been doing for the last twenty-some-odd years, or what they want me to do for them. And I am trained to be able to figure that stuff out. Jobs requiring highly specialized technical knowledge are particularly common problems because often the HR connection who is responsible for managing the search process has no deep technical expertise and struggles to understand what is really required by a manager speaking jargon.
Kidding aside, it is sad but true that clarity in communications is often lacking and such a simple omission creates a significant disconnect in the hiring process. The question that needs to be answered is always “If someone who doesn’t know me/my job read this, would they be able to understand what I have done/what I’m looking for?” You have to get a different view of your communication, an outsider’s view, away from the jargon and assumptions that other people are familiar with the subject matter. Usually I entirely re-write company job descriptions to use in my searches, because they don’t tell a prospective candidate anything useful about what they will really be doing all day or how their success will be measured. They are usually so internally-focused that an outsider would have trouble figuring out the basics. I’m sure you’ve seen the kind of thing – “incumbent shall be responsible for managing the activities of subordinates to achieve divisional goals and meet (fill in the cryptic acronym) criteria…” And just today, I heard from a guy who has been a VP at a large company for several years whose resume was completely without reference to any markets, products or context for his skills and self-valuation. I literally have no idea what he did – but I know he believes himself a dynamic executive with vast transferable skills.
So… clarity is really about passing the litmus test of “can someone outside understand what I am saying?” Give the communication to your assistant, or someone not intimately involved in your job, and ask them for their view of what it says. Or give your resume or letter to your spouse or a friend and see if they can tell you what you are saying. If they can – you’re on the right track. If not – it’s likely that clarity is missing. The onus is always on the one communicating to ensure the message can be understood. “Good communications skills” doesn’t mean having an extensive vocabulary – it means ensuring the core purpose of your message can be understood by your intended audience. We all know that intellectually if we’ve reached any level of success in business, and yet it’s one of the most common mistakes I see in communications about jobs, from both sides. Often, a big part of my own role is to play translator; but there isn’t always a translator in the room when your message is received.
So, these three remain, faith, hope and clarity – but the greatest of these is clarity.













