shirgall Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 From an phone interview today, I've been told that because I want to do something different that I want more in five years that I don't really want the job I've applied to, but the job I applied to is one I've done well for a decade. Sure, I see it as a stepping stone, as a way to pay my dues to get mindshare in a company, but when the role I really want is not there, what else can I do? The interviewer said I should step back and look at what I really want, but I feel pretty clear about what I really want. I don't feel I did the wrong thing by being honest with the interviewer, but I obviously sunk my own boat on getting gainfully employed. Figured I'd blurt this out as a form of catharsis. I'm kinda devastated at the moment.
Bouncelot Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 Sorry to hear this! Unfortunately allot of companies are not looking for people with any kinds of aspirations.... "They might leave us!?" The problem is, by not providing their employees with those options, they DO leave out of boredom. I think you answered it perfectly. Its a great way to weed out bad employers! 1
shirgall Posted October 1, 2014 Author Posted October 1, 2014 I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a bad employer. The hiring manager is looking for people happy and motivated to perform the assigned role. If I have my eyes on another prize maybe I won't be happy. Thus, I posted on Self-Knowledge...
tasmlab Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 Being honest and expressing your needs may have been a mistake. I don't necessarily mean either is bad, but prospective employees have to "sell" themselves to their employers, just like a salesman has to sell a product. Everything has to be on fulfilling what the buyer wishes and the value they will get. You pretty much got it here, unequivocally: "The hiring manager is looking for people happy and motivated to perform the assigned role. " That's it and all of it. All said, maybe this will give you a chance to find a really good, elegant match, where the employer WANTS somebody with somebody who wants more/different in the future.
MrCapitalism Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 The hiring manager is looking for people happy and motivated to perform the assigned role. That's got "Dead End Job" written all over it. 1
wdiaz03 Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 That's got "Dead End Job" written all over it. Isn't it "Dead end" only if he stays? The job might be misrepresented by the hiring manager. What I mean is that one cannot truly access the job by the bias and preconceptions of a hiring manager...He might have read one of those hiring books too many...or "reading people signals for dummies", Once the OP is hired he can truly access what the job is about, what the chances of moving around the company are etc. most companies allow you to climb the corporate ladder or move to different divisions. In a free society I can see people having more employment opportunities but in today's regulated environment employment might be harder to come by and it would not hurt trying things out for a few weeks.
dsayers Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 Sorry to hear about this. It's counter-productive. Every employee of every company should be getting trained on how to do their boss's job. It's better for everybody involved, from the owner of the company to the customers. If I were in charge of hiring, I would prefer those with ambition over those who would choose to stagnate for five years. 1
QueechoFeecho Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 (edited) That's got "Dead End Job" written all over it. No it doesn't. It means the hiring manager needs the position filled and is acting consistent with that need. Especially in lines of work that have steep learning curves, it is incredibly unproductive, frustrating, and ineffective if your hiring process keeps selecting people that leave shortly, putting you right back where you started: Undermanned. Unless it is a job where high turnover is common and always will be (like cashiers at McDonald's or stocking shelves in a grocery store, it is practical for a hiring manager to prefer someone who will stick around. Otherwise the time you invest training them goes to waste. Sorry to hear about this. It's counter-productive. Every employee of every company should be getting trained on how to do their boss's job. It's better for everybody involved, from the owner of the company to the customers. If I were in charge of hiring, I would prefer those with ambition over those who would choose to stagnate for five years. Not every job needs a rock star level of ambition. Some functions are simply that: functions. You need someone to punch in, move the boxes from here to there, and punch out. Some jobs are similar but require an investment of time and training at the beginning. Those are the jobs where you want someone who wants to stick around. And I don't mean they need to stand up and give an emotional pledge about how they will keep that job until they die, but they could just do one practical thing: not announcing their intent to leave. There is really no need to say that, whether it's true or not. Edited October 4, 2014 by QueechoFeecho
dsayers Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 Not every job needs a rock star level of ambition. Some functions are simply that: functions. You need someone to punch in, move the boxes from here to there, and punch out. How will they determine where is "here"? How will they determine where is "there"? What will they do if there are no boxes "here"? What will they do if "there" has no room to accommodate those boxes? Ambition doesn't enter into it; An employer would place higher value on an employee that understands/can be taught these things over one that doesn't/can't. An employer would place higher value still on an employee that understood those as well as (for example) how to rectify the problem of there not being boxes "here". And so on. Still, I do appreciate the correction as my use of the word ambition was imprecise. Thank you for that.
QueechoFeecho Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 Right. I don't think anything I said contradicts what you say in the first paragraph. In fewer words: Employers want to know that people can be taught how to do the job at hand. I don't think anyone is going to dispute that. I used the word "ambition" because it is ambitious, at least to some degree, to be seeking a job that you know you will outgrow and intend to leave for a better job. Everyone should do this, but sometimes it is impractical given the goal of the interview, which is for both people to determine if they want the employment situation they are talking about. How will they determine where is "here"? How will they determine where is "there"? What will they do if there are no boxes "here"? What will they do if "there" has no room to accommodate those boxes? Ambition doesn't enter into it; An employer would place higher value on an employee that understands/can be taught these things over one that doesn't/can't. An employer would place higher value still on an employee that understood those as well as (for example) how to rectify the problem of there not being boxes "here". And so on. Still, I do appreciate the correction as my use of the word ambition was imprecise. Thank you for that.
shirgall Posted October 4, 2014 Author Posted October 4, 2014 Let me add that there is no question that I can do the job. There is a question about whether I would be happy, as I have left two different jobs where I had the same role.
dsayers Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 Was the role itself the reason you left those jobs? Or were there other factors such as specific people, potential of that role to expand, etc?
shirgall Posted October 5, 2014 Author Posted October 5, 2014 Indeed, both times was because of the potential to expand (in a sense). The first time I moved to a more senior position. The second time, the company reduced in size and the position for which I was hired was no longer there.
Recommended Posts