foodfisher
Captain
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2009
- Messages
- 3,756
Re: When you know your job is going away...
Nothing wrong with CYA.
Nothing wrong with CYA.
On the upside, the old adage about only employed people being hiring targets has been changing. This is clearly due to the economy over the last 4-5 years wherein even business owners, managers and HR people probably all know high quality people who got the rug pulled out from under them. As a result the mindset has changed (eased) as to someone being a possible hiring target and currently working (or not) if and when there is a good history behind your career.
I'm in a right-to-work state, and that's not the way our laws work. Might wanna' double check yours.
I'm much the same way; a much better #2 guy than entrepreneur. I do try to keep some independent projects going though ... just in case
For the record and IMHO what makes me nervous is someone who has either held 5-6+ jobs over the last 10 years OR only 1 job for the last 20+ years....these are the deal breakers for me.
What I perceive with the first situation is a 'drifter' and/or job jumper who won't or can't commit to work and is probably not going to change now. The second situation is a 'lifer' who is unlikely to adapt well to a new job and probably is not great with 'change'....both can be a financial burden to a company.
My two bits.
BP:joyous:
Dismissing people arbitrarily because they fit into those two categories is short-sighted and "can be a financial burden to a company" because they might miss out on some truly superior candidates.
Staying in the same job for 20+ years may no longer be a norm, but without investigating the circumstances, you may be passing on someone who has had a rewarding job, in a stable company, and had sufficient fulfillment that they have had no reason to seek change. Not many people would fault that....most would love to be in that position.
Similarly, 5-6 jobs in 10 years may also be simply an ambitious type who is looking for increasing responsibility and reward. That type of individual can be a challenge, but if kept engaged and focused, is going to be a huge asset to an organisation that is mature enough to recognise the opportunity.
Making a mental note of those two criteria for further scrutiny is reasonable....using them as a filter is weak HR.
HR is very difficult to do well, but from the flip side, I have always paid very close attention to the HR process that I encounter when going through the application/hiring process. I have turned down a couple of job offers over the years because I had some concerns about that process, and believe that the way a company approaches HR is a mirror of their corporate soul.
uke:Being pro active as most employers are, is just keeping the field even and as a head hunter I would suggest you are just fine as long as you don't use company time and material to find your new career. Most companies wont give you a two week notice, or the heads up about your job ending, and it's for purely business reasons. But this also means you need to cover your behind and treat them with the same approach. Today's business climate is much different than the days of 1 job careers, so make sure you don't short change yourself. An employed candidate has much, much more negotiating power than one who is not. I always look for the employed person first, this tells me they are pro-active and this is a quality IMO. In today's world of cut and paste human capital, you darn well better CYA or it could end up in the wind! Treat corporate America just as they would treat you, and we all know how caring that is.....Not!!!
Then I am not sure how we "are on the same page". I couldn't disagree more....re-read my comments.I think we are on the same page with this to be quite honest although I do stand by my initial commentss about the 1-2 year and the 20+ year candidates.
That is your experience, but may not be valid for others. What if the company that they work for IS a leader in R&D and innovation?Interestingly, I remember being 'hunted' by a fairly high end Engineering Sourcing company when I lived in Toronto. The people that I dealt with there are the ones who had said that the issue with 20+ year candidates (at least in this field) is that they typically have 5 years experience....4 times, unless the company they are working for is very cutting edge and technically progressive. This made good sense to me. I know that after 10 years with the same company, at least at that time, my experience was starting to 'flatline' in terms of learning and doing anything new, which was important to me.
Nothing in there I'd argue with....Going back to your comments about the HR dept's...I agree that they are the ones who have to be looking a little closer at the candidates and not using 80's/90's philosophies about whether or not they are currently employed in determining a high quality 'catch'. That line of thinking will have a company missing out on some very good people out there.
BP
