I got to sit in on an interview for my own job today. Well, it isn't "my" job, it is a replacement for the person who did the same work as I in North America. It was interesting because they were given the same task I was when I interviewed for the role and they did really well at it - better than I did. However, there is more to the job than a short delivery, and while they were really good in so many ways, there were also some alarm bells, things that I have mentioned before in the current job market.
It was brought up by my colleague on the interview panel, who asked if they would explain why they are leaving their current role, as they started at that place less than a year ago. Like it or not, commitment matters and when looking to spend a large amount of time and money in order to train someone for a role, you don't want them to pick up and leave. And company wants aside, I personally want colleagues that I can rely on and trust over time, not someone who is going to move on for a little bit more money, or because of the reason they gave, where the organizational structure had changed and they didn't like having to build new relationships.
This is common these days though, where people are picking and choosing their jobs based on what can be poor indicators of what is a good job, or a company with a good culture. More money doesn't mean a better working environment. Stable structure doesn't mean the company is doing well.
If a company isn't changing their structure in this environment, they are probably not going to last long-term, or this economy is suited for them already. This doesn't mean hitting the panic stations and becoming fully reactionary, but being preemptive is wise. For example, cutting back on some costs or like this case,
Being careful with who is hired.
But, if a person is unable to cope with corporate change at largish companies, how are they going to cope with the day to day challenges where things can be pivoting rapidly and adjustments need to be made.
For example, I joined the remote session a few minutes before the others in the panel as I saw the candidate join. As they spoke, the sound quality was terrible and cutting in and out, as if there was a connection loss, but there wasn't. I tried to save them a bit and spent a couple minutes troubleshooting with them, yet they seemed to want to persist to get the setup they had working, when the obvious play was to ditch the headset and use the laptop mic and speakers, which I had already suggested. As a result, the others joined as there was still ongoing "unpreparedness", which I was trying to avoid for them.
So I suggested again to unplug the headset.
And this time they deferred and did so.
But, because the last few minutes were spent fiddling around and in stress, it meant that he was a little flustered and nervous when beginning the session. He recovered well enough, but technical issues are the law in remote sessions much of the time and dealing with them on the fly and getting down to business, is a skill that needs to be developed.
It reminded me of when I first interviewed for this company and it was a face to face panel where I was to give a short training and demo of the enterprise software solution. I was a very late addition to the interview process and literally talked on the phone for ten minutes and agreed to do a delivery the following day.
On premises, I met the group of who would be my future team colleagues and connected my laptop to present a slidedeck and for the technical demo component on a large screen. However, after 30 seconds of the group of five or six trying to get the display to work and apologising for the inconvenience, I said, that it is okay and asked -
how about I just go old school and use the flipchart instead?
Suffice to say, they were skeptical. But also very curious. So, rather than a presentation, which was weak as I had prepared it in about 20 minutes, I had a discussion-based session, drawing pictures of the UI on the board, building a working narrative around the processes and talking more from a conceptual level, rather than a practical.
After the presentation, much of the rest of the interview was talking about the bits they liked about the presentation and just talking about more personality topics, as I had proven myself a trainer to the standard they would need, someone who doesn't do perfect,
someone who does good enough.
As long as the goal of the session is met, it doesn't matter the path to get there. Often people try to polish their deliveries so much and make them so precise, that when things inevitably go wrong, they lose their train of thought, lose their flow and ultimately, lose their audience. I am far too simple for that level of complexity,
I just wing it.
But, in a colleague that I have to rely on to perform certain tasks, I don't want them to be like me, because I am frustrating as hell to work with, as even though I meet deadlines and standards, the path to get there is different to what many other people would take, and when they are relying on me, they can get a little anxious.
But this is the thing with building up track-record, because once there is a trusted relationship where even if they don't get why or how I take the path I do, they know I will get there in the end, to the standard they need. As I said to the candidate today,
It takes time to build the relationships with Leaders where you can drop them a line and say,
"I am going to do this, okay?"
And get a thumbs up.
And this is the problem with changing jobs too often, because those trusted relationships aren't able to be built and when every decision is questioned and a fight to get through, work sucks ass. But, changing jobs isn't the answer, because then it is just starting from scratch again and I know people who are continually doing this for years on end, always hating what they do and blaming the colleagues and culture, for why they move on.
Yet, what they don't seem to ask themselves is, why aren't other people moving on? How come other people in that company are having a good working experience, while mine is a constant battle?
They must be idiots and have no options!
Or, they might be trusted and have a lot of options.
A good interview only gets you so far. At the moment, there is a fair bit of money floating about some industries for the right people, but companies are also becoming more cautious and selective with what is the "right person" for the job. As culture is such an important aspect these days, there is more emphasis getting put on whether the personality is the right fit on both sides, as choose poorly and the culture can degrade quickly, and it can take years to repair. What is good to remember though is,
Getting the job and doing the job are two very different things.
I think I could work with this person well, but can I trust them?
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
My work style is as well a bit different for my role than some others and one of the trainers hates it and it amuses me. She’s used to being the top shot on the block, every one bowing to her and her decades of experience which she rightfully has lots of and is incredibly smart. I’ve put her to task though a few times and she’s snapped at me more than a few times lol. I’ve not reciprocated the behavior she foments onto me, back to her but it goes back to how we do things and she doesn’t like how I do things but I do produce results, just differently.
Jumping around is tricky because there are some good reasons to do it but I think sadly in these days, a lot of it is not a good thing. We had someone who was supposed to be a product specialist that joined the team and did have quite the challenge to undertake but caved under the pressure and quit about 8 months in. I didn’t mind the guy but I know that in order to work, we have to be able to balance things appropriately. If we can’t handle the stress of a place that on the grand scheme of things isn’t very stressful, people are doomed to not be one of the people who can effectively do something.
Doing the flip chart must have been fun, I’ve done that once and people were confused in the age of computers using those lol.
If your company decides to hire this one, hopefully it works out! The I uncalculated cost of hiring is definitely training the person!
There are so many lazy people around. No comments left for 7 hours)
Lol. It happens occasionally people are busy and I tend to write a lot and about topics that are a bit niche at times. I think this is one of those that not many care that much about.
Lack of comments is a bit depressing, but the value from the process of writing still remains. For example, while writing this I was able to reflect heavily on the interview and get a better understanding of the pros and cons of this person, as well as what is important to focus more attention on with the next, which will be in a few hours.
I was interested in the moments of your team's work. I didn't work on a team for 20 years, and even then we were our own bosses.
What were you doing for 20 years?
Before this job (which I have had for almost 4) I was freelancing and then started my own business consulting, which I still do. I took this one as a backup, just in case things went south. I quite like it though and it is nice to have colleagues again :)
In the early 2000s, he sold cell phones. I built computers from used components and sold them.
In 2006, I opened an account with a broker and started trading stocks and futures.
Not a bad way to not have to work for someone :)
Now my work is only Hive. Investments and trading Hive. And a few posts and comments for the soul.
At first, such persons should improve themselves throughout their carrier and also their companies should train them periodically according to changing work patterns in the world.
I agree. This is something that I like about the company I work in - after all, I am internal enablement, which means ongoing development activities and this happens company wide (I focus on the Sales organization).
The challenge is that for a lot of companies, it is hard to keep investing into people who are going to leave anyway. It is a catch-22 in many respects. This is why hiring practices that fit employee and culture together, are so important.
Sometimes moving around is the only way you will actually get a pay rise as it seems companies will just keep you on whatever you started on and keep generally refusing otherwise.
That’s been J’s experience anyway but he’s now in a spot where lifestyle and pay seem to have intersected reasonably well.
Meanwhile at least most companies are not like a lot of roleplaying groups Anna actually pay attention to and deal with red flags before they become problem players 😆
This is actually the problem we’re facing in the medical sector in Nigeria currently where medical practitioners strive to get work just to save up money then run away to another country. It’s called the “japa trend”. Consistency is a thing. In every place where success is found, consistency came first.
I absolutely agree with you on this.
It a bummer when someone you work well with and can trust to deliver decides to leave the company. It takes a while to develop that relationship but sadly it's just a fact of life where some people like to hop from job to job. I've had friends who's done that for a few years, and then suddenly they stop and stay with the same job forever.
My workplace cannot find no one good enough to hire on similar jobs with mine. We need like 2 more staff on same position, and 3 more for the position under mine. The problem is, they are offering good benefits, but not oriented to young people (good government pension scheme, 26 days off - on 3 weeks x 12 hours shifts this is like 8 weeks of holiday + 6-7 days on bank holidays - another 2 weeks , making it 10 - lirerally you work 9.5 months, with 3 days work and 4 days off a week.) The wage is the average wage, still, no one is applying, no idea why. Curious and curioser! Many young people say that they do not care about a good pension, and would like money now instead of paying for it, how is this good for financial independence?