Blog

Last weekend I met with a friend of mine that is a very versatile, very senior software/IT candidate looking for a job. We were talking about how difficult it has been for him to connect with some recruiters and managers at companies that have openings he has seen. The "black hole" is swallowing up his resume, and his attempts to use LinkedIn and other networking tools has been somewhat successful, but not 100%. Like many people, he was laid off and has a family to take care of. He is also well-educated (PhD in his field) and has a stellar record.

He mentioned one particular company he has been trying to contact about an opening, but nothing he has tried has gotten him to actually speak to a real person. So I shared with him a recruiting technique that, while it takes a lot of time, can be very effective at getting a live person on the phone. If you are trying to call, say, recruiting but don’t have a name and try the main switchboard (if you are lucky enough to get a live operator, if not the corporate phone tree) you may not be able to reach someone.

This exercise is best done after business hours, as you are doing research, called "name generation" in recruiting. Call the main business number, then get to the "directory by name". Start with the A’s…type "AAA" or "AAB" or "AAC", and then start mapping the corporate directory. Go to the first voice mail, write down the name of the person, their department or title, and if they list it their extension. Methodically go down the directory until you find contacts in the department/s of interest.

As a candidate you can further cross-reference your findings on LinkedIn to get the correct spelling of the name and full title. Call during business hours the next day until you reach the person of interest.

If you were to call my work voice mail, my greeting says, "You have reached Kristen Fife in recruiting. I am not able to take your call right now but if you leave me your name, telephone number including area code, and a brief message I will get back to you as soon as I am able." This is pretty standard practice at most companies. Obviously, at large companies like Microsoft, or IBM, etc this is a long and tedious process, but at small to medium sized companies it can be quite useful.

Remember, the goal is to get the attention of someone to have them look at your resume or talk to you about your skill set and fit for the position. When you do get hold of someone "live" make sure you have a short pitch line ready about what and why you are calling. "Hi, my name is Jane Doe. I was interested in an opening you have for a supply chain analyst on your website. I match all your requirements, and I have six years of experience at XYZ company working on the ABC product line." Keep it concise, but recruiters especially will appreciate the fact that you have considered your match for the position and may be able to pull you out of their queue for consideration.

It’s interesting how candidates and recuiters approach job offers. In the Seattle tech market especially, it is highly standard to have a phone screen with candidates talking to someone from HR or Recruiting, and to talk about issues such as compensation. Depending on the company/organization, total compensation can have several components. Many candidates only think of base salary when the talk about a job offer, but it is important to think of things such as health insurance, flexible spending accounts (health care/child care which are pre-tax) annual bonus potential, 401K matching (free money!), vacation/PTO, parking/transit subsidy, gym membership, company equity (stock), tuition reimbursement, flexible work options, and subsidized food plans (the most common "perks" that contribute to a total compensation package).

Let’s talk for just a minute about base salary. Everyone thinks that this is the most important part of any job offer, and while it certainly is of prime importance, it would be a mistake to decline a job offer just because the salary is lower than what you think you should be receiving. For example, if your employer offers you fully paid insurance coverage for your entire family and 25 days of PTO (paid time off), you may be looking at much more than the usual $5-10K most people usually try and negotiate on. (Believe it or not, $5-10K doesn’t make that much of a difference in your weekly/bi-weekly/monthly take home pay unless you are making much less than the national average.) Let’s say you have a family of 5, including your spouse and three children, one of whom is in college and the other two are under 18. Your spouse qualifies for their own health care insurance at work, and your company will pay for all your dependents (including your collegiate child until age 26.) Let’s say that the premium is $200 for each of you per month. That is $12,000 for all five of you. For comparisons, assume you have an offer for $60K base salary and another for $70K with similar titles/responsibilities, but the $70K offer only pays for your premium (let’s use the same $200 as a comparator) and only 25% of the premium for the rest of your dependents. That means that you will be paying $150 each month for each of your dependents, which lowers your annual salary by $7200, so you aren’t looking at that big of a gap between the two offers after all.

Knowing what questions to ask during an offer negotiation will not only help you decide on the best choice for you, but the benefits and total compensation that a company invests in also can give you an idea about how well it treats its employees. If a company offers an above-average amount of perks to employees, it could indicate that management is willing to invest in the health and welfare of its staff, even as it impacts the bottom line. If there are better family coverage options such as childcare flexible spending accounts, that might also indicate a corporate culture where there are more working parents, equating to better work-life balance as a corporate value.

One of the frustrations I have as a recruiter are when job seekers make excuses or blame employers/recruiters for not giving them a chance or require too much in the way of processes and expectations during the application process. Below are two recent examples of these. Be assured that none of the job seekers are doing themselves any good by blaming other people or finding excuses not to try and work within the process. I have never disputed that many companies write poor or incomplete job descriptions, or that there are poor/bad recruiters out there, but some things exist due to external forces and need to be dealt with and companies/recruiters/hiring managers are constrained in specific ways in how they recruit.

There is a discussion over on LinkedIn in one of the groups I belong to about being overqualified and undereducated for the job market. Obviously, most of the respondents are unhappy because they have a "ton" of experience but no one is hiring them because they are lacking a Bachelor’s degree of some sort. Lots of ideas were thrown out, including having larger local companies host "career night" or "talent meet and greet" events where recruiters and hiring managers host an open house that people can attend to form connections and market themselves. The other complaint is that Applicant Tracking Systems are screening them out of jobs they are qualified for, so that their resumes are going into the dreaded "black hole" and that recruiters aren’t even seeing their qualifications.

I explained how recruiters operate, and the basis for how ATS databases work. These are my responses:

Regarding industry hosted open houses: "Some companies do have open houses or host industry events. The problem for larger local companies is that most local candidates already have connections and can get an Employee Referral (the single most effective way both for a candidate and a recruiter to make quality connections) or introduction. Companies like Microsoft and Amazon, Starbucks and Boeing have such huge needs that the money and man hour investments in a local open house have a very low ROI. Local networking events like the East Side Networking and Seattle Job Social groups or industry MeetUps are far more effective.

I get at least half a dozen emails, phone calls, and LI requests for help with resume and job seeking 1:1 counseling every week. Unfortunately I don’t have the time to devote to each and every request. I do try and help individuals move in the right direction via email or professional introductions/resources, but I cannot give personalized "service" to everyone that needs it, work a reasonable schedule at my job, and keep a healthy work-life balance. That was actually why I started a blog for job seekers: to help people understand what happens from the recruiting side of the equation. And I *do* regularly attend career fairs, speak on various professional panels, and go to networking events/mixers to try and connect with the local candidate pool. I know most recruiters help when/where they can with the general public, but it can be overwhelming. I generally work a (salaried) 50 hour week, like most industry professionals I know."

In reference to applicant databases: "I do understand where you are coming from, but the role of recruiting is to make the determination of a "good fit" in conjunction with our hiring managers. I think you have a perception that recruiting software automates the process to the point where there are resumes that recruiters never see. Recruiters eyeball *each applicant* and make the determination whether a given candidate is a fit. The system provides a framework (a relational database wherein each candidate record and each application are a 1:1 "transaction view"). I look at every resume on every job, including via LinkedIn, referrals, email/DM to me via LI, Twitter, etc. The "system" doesn’t decide who I evaluate. All it does is provide a list of records linked in a logical and workable interface.

Boolean Searching (or keyword matching) is what we use to narrow the applicant records field down, and that is why it is critical that applicant resumes *match each job description by being tailored to the position type/s.* The truth is, if you don’t have the skills required by the position, you aren’t going to get the job. It doesn’t matter if you are friends with the CEO; if you don’t have the skills/experience/education needed to perform, you aren’t a viable candidate.

There is a major component to the Recruiting profession called "sourcing" and this is defined as "going and finding candidates" from a variety of places. Companies like Microsoft, Amazon, and Starbucks have dedicated teams of sourcers who look through databases, blogs, industry bios, their own ATS, talent communities, LinkedIn, FB, Google+ etc. to identify potential talent, generally based on profiles (ie Java developer, staff accountant, medical assistant, marketing manager, etc.) For my company, I function as both the sourcer and a full lifecycle recruiter for the Product teams. I have held several sourcing roles for various industries and companies (Legal, healthcare, technology) where that is all I did; find candidates and build both relationships with them and profile lists.

Returning to your original idea of "Career Night" I refer back to the fact that it isn’t always practical in terms of time and money. It is the same concept as a career fair. If I go to a career fair during the work day, that means I take anywhere from 2-8+ hours out of my day to meet people. I end up making that time up either working longer, on the weekend, in the evenings. If my company hosts a career night/fair we have to have enough people (either employees or we have to pay for temps) to manage the logistics; if it is in the evening, we have to provide appropriate facilities including space (if in our own building that means extra security and set-up and tear down or renting space elsewhere), possibly refreshments, parking, etc. Unless I have a really high number of openings, it doesn’t make sense.

Recruiting isn’t about just sitting and waiting for candidates to find our jobs and apply, then letting a software program tell us who is qualified. It is about reaching out to talent, building relationships for current and future business openings, and managing vast amounts of data, the entire hiring process, and having a fairly in-depth knowledge of laws in a number of areas. The average recruiter has anywhere from 1-20+ openings at a time in the corporate world, in the agency area it can be as high as 40-50. Often those positions are several openings for the same type of role, so it becomes "profiles" vs. individual jobs, but each position is a separate transaction from start to finish so we have a multitude of ongoing projects in various stages at any given time. For example, right now I am working on 3 offers, two interview loops, several phone screens, and sourcing for all the positions that I don’t have pending offers on."

The comments and discussion went on and on and on, with each person that feels cheated by the current methods of recruiting putting up more and more complaints that recruiters don’t understand how hiring "should" work; that companies aren’t making it easy for applicants to get their foot in the door; that just because they lack a Bachelor’s doesn’t mean they are less qualified; federal compliance regulations don’t *really* matter and companies should have a wide enough definition of "qualified" to include years and years of experience.

I recently met with a seasoned Executive Assistant that is working for a company and is unhappy and hoping to make a change. A mutual acquaintance had suggested she talk to me about her resume and potential job search.

We went for coffee, and she gave me a copy of her resume. It had good bones, and I made only a couple of suggestions that could improve it. Then we started talking about what she is looking for.

1): She doesn’t work for a company with too many processes/too much structure in place

I recommended that she look at smaller companies and start-ups. She responded that she didn’t want to work at a start up because of the uncertainty, the low pay, and the fact that she would probably have to work way too many hours. She didn’t think the benefits at a smaller company would give her enough insurance coverage.

2): I discussed how to optimize her resume for keyword searching via Applicant Tracking Systems. Keep in mind, my suggestions involved making about 4 small changes to her resume.

Her response? A company that used a computerized system to determine a skills fit is too impersonal for what she wants in an employer.

3) Her career has always been based on personal relationships; she has never had to "look for a job" and has always gotten referrals for openings. How do most people go about looking for a job when they already have one?
B />

I told her that most people look for jobs to apply for on their lunch breaks, in the evening and on weekends. Interviewing may take some vacation/PTO time to accomplish. She went on to tell me that "oh I couldn’t do that, it cuts into my personal time."

After throwing up all these objections, I finally asked her what her optimum choice would be.

"Preferably marrying someone rich so I could do what I want; either own my own business, or work at a boutique or maybe doing some meaningful volunteer work."

When I suggested she consider a match-maker that specializes in millionaire clients, she had an excuse for that too: "I don’t think my boyfriend would like that."

I know job hunting is a long, slow, frustrating process. I have spent a good deal of my career contracting and *looking* for jobs. I try to help people as much as I can by sharing my expertise and explaining how recruiting and hiring works, why some things are done the way they are, and making suggestions so that job seekers can improve their chances. Be careful what you say/write, who you convey it to, and where/when you vent your frustrations.

I meet a lot of collegiates and people wanting to make a career change in my travels, and many of them ask me about a career in human resources. My first question to them is "why do you want to be in HR?" And almost every single response is, "I want to help people".

This is a noble sentiment, but the truth of the matter is that the primary purpose of human resources is to protect the company (legally) with regards to their human capital. There are only a few sub-specialties of the human resources field that deal specifically with "helping people." Recruiting is the most obvious; my job is to help hiring managers find great talent, and help people find good jobs. About the only downside to recruiting, for me, is having to decline a candidate when they aren’t a fit for a position after phone calls or interviews. I need to have a working knowledge of Benefits, Compensation, and general HR laws. Employee Development/Training is also a domain for helping people. A few things to know about training. 1) you generally will need some sort of degree or experience in either education, psychology, or instructional design 2) it is one of the aspects of HR that is highly subject to budgetary restrictions and is often one of the first areas to be cut in times of economic downturns 3) there is a limited career path in HR for training/development. Benefits administration is a branch of HR that directly helps employees with decisions like health insurance, vacation, and investment options. Much of benefits lies in contract negotiation, reporting, and understanding the ever-changing insurance market (in the US) or in other countries the government-sponsored health plans.

Other areas of HR deal more with either research and reporting, compliance (legal), strategic planning, and solving problems involving employees and the company. Compensation is the arm of HR that deals with salaries (including raises, bonuses, new-hire scales, creating job descriptions). It is a complex analytical role that impacts recruiting, headcount forecasting (how many and what type of employees are going to be needed in the upcoming quarter/year), and interacts very closely with finance/accounting and payroll. The technical HRIS (Human Resource Information System) professional is responsible for the technology/tools that HR and Recruiting use such as databases and performance management tracking systems. There are related fields like Immigration or Employment Law (on both the company and individual side), Labor Union representatives, Career Coach, Employment Specialist for government agencies, and Career Counselors at Universities to name a few.

Most people generally think of the HR Generalist (or HR Manager, or HR Business Partner) when they think of "HR" positions. The role of the HR Generalist is to work within an organization to advise how business decisions that involve people are in the best interests of the business. This includes employee relations (helping resolve issues involving employees), performance management and annual reviews, advising on internal equity issues, assisting in headcount forecating, and advising managers and executives about legal implications of decisions made.

A lot of people get their foot in the proverbial door as some sort of administrative support professional such as a Recruiting or HR or Benefits Coordinator. Recruiting requires being very good at using Outlook or other calendaring software. HR and Benefits positions are highly administrative in nature, requiring a lot of filing, reporting, updating of collateral, and being a general resource for your team. Most of these positions don’t require a college degree.

A good resource for anyone interested in HR is SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management) at http://shrm.org. There is also a certification that is highly encouraged for HR professionals called the PHR (or SPHR). To be eligible, you must have a certain amount of HR experience under your belt.

I’m going to start a series on different professional profiles, and I’m going to start with Marketing Managers. There are a lot of undergrads and MBA candidates out there that are getting a degree in marketing and hoping to find a job out of school. In the last twelve months I have hired a General Manager, 2 Directors, three Product Managers and two Marketing Managers, so I am very familiar with the profiles that relate to "marketing". (Keep in mind that this is in the tech sector, so this will obviously have a noticeable effect on what I am looking for.)

So there are a few things to understand about marketing. The purpose of marketing is to use a variety of persuasive mediums to drive interest in sales for products or services (a very basic definition, to be sure). Marketing is very closely tied to PR (Public Relations) on the industry spectrum and those marketers that are on the "creative" side are migrating to PR firms, as pure marketing companies seem to be on the decline. Marketing has moved from being a tactical response to a need to driving strategy, which is a good thing.

So what are some of the trends I’ve been seeing? Cross functionality is huge, and the role of marketing is starting to change from a purely creative "messaging" identity to more of a data-driven role. The big concept here is "monetization", which is the tie-in with sales; capture and analyze the profiles of your target audience and then zap them with appropriate messaging. Almost all the marketing professionals I have hired in the last year have very strong skills with web analytics, even our MBA grad (she got her experience from an internship.)

Here is a good <a href="http://www.btobonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?aid=/20100614/free/306149997">article</a> from high-level marketing execs with at least a decade each in the industry.

Marketing used to be all about driving customers to the object of the marketing plan. Nowadays, customers define the market and it’s all about capturing their attention. Everything has gone digital; any "physical" marketing is generally done in conjunction with digital campaigns. It’s interesting, because as a recruiter, I do a lot of marketing (making the right candidate segment aware of our job openings as well as our employment "brand" in general). The way I target my candidate population now is vastly different than a decade ago.

There has also been a fundamental shift in the consumer; they now want the opinions of the masses, trusting other consumers (including but not limited to friends and family) to help them make decisions. There are nowadays professional bloggers…people that make their money exclusively from their blogs-from advertisements that they may or may not have control over but, because they are trusted as a source of information, products on their websites trigger an innate trust in the readers. This ties into that data-driven profiling I mentioned. Facebook does a really good job of allowing marketing to devise extremely targeted campaigns; I’ve used it myself to look for web analytics managers.

If you are looking to get into marketing, say as a college student, I highly recommend that you learn about web analytics, either in school or on your own. GoogleAnalytics is a reasonable place to start. Some of the other well known tools on the market are Omniture, Catalyst, and WebTrends. (Wikipedia has a pretty good overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_analytics_software).

If you have been in marketing a long time and find yourself unsure how to transition from, say, a copywriter or event marketer into a more updated role, I suggest focusing on a specific part of the business like branding or licensing, and start becoming a guru in social media. Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Mashable and the up an comer, Pinterest (and if you don’t have an industry blog, *start one*!). Read everything you can on how to tie social media into your marketing and branding experience. User yourself as the "brand" and start creating your digital expertise.

Yesterday I went to a recruiting symposium and we talked a lot about retention. The single most common reason people leave a position is due to lack of career growth. One of the speakers, who has done a ton of Executive Recruiting, said she has new MBA hires call her all the time and tell her to keep them in her tickler file for VP positions. Her story continued when she responds, "VP of what"? and the response more often than not, is "anything". (Not joking here.)

I have consistently told my own leaders that I have *absolutely no desire* to get into a management role. I’m happy to mentor, I’d consider a Lead Recruiter position, but I love being a *recruiter*. And after you have spent any amount of time in the business world, you learn two very important things: one, if someone is a good individual contributor (IC) that doesn’t necessarily equate to a good manager, and second, managers don’t do the same jobs as IC’s-they go to meetings, they work with HR on employee issues, they manage budgets, they go to meetings, they work on succession planning and headcount forecasting, they go to meetings, they plan for the next fiscal year, they go to meetings…yes, you see a pattern.

The question I would ask yourself is: why do you want to be a manager? What compels you to want a "management" title? Is it more money? Is it because you really enjoy developing employees? Do you want to be a strategic part of your company’s growth? Is it because it seems natural that more responsibility equals a "manager" title?

The only question with a "yes" answer that would be valid among those listed above is "developing employees". But remember that "developing" includes hiring, firing, and performance management (ie evaluating each of your direct reports every year and dealing with underperformers or any other issues). If you are a hiring manager, part of growing your team and business includes writing job descriptions, managing your headcount budget, dealing with internal equity, providing training and opportunities for growth, and spending a significant amount of time working with recruiting-reviewing resumes, conducting phone screens, interviewing, working with compensation to make sure that your team has internal compensation equity.

Management also includes significant amounts of reporting to your superiors, politicking, operational procedures, interacting with other team stakeholders on projects as well as working on future-looking projects and initiatives. This may or may not be in addition to also being a contributing member of your team. Think of a brand retail store manager. S/he does all the scheduling, orders supplies, goes over all the financial transactions, deals with customer issues, interfaces with HQ/Divisional management, makes sure all associates are up to date and trained, does all the interviewing/hiring/firing, conducts all HR functions, AND generally also sells and has their own sales goals which may or may not be tied to the store’s numbers. Managers get paid more, but they certainly work much longer hours.

Obviously, managers are necessary in today’s business world, and some people are great leaders. But if you say you want to get "into management" and don’t know everything that will entail, you might want to think on your career trajectory. If you love your profession and the day-to-day activities, "management" may actually make you hate your job. And the truth of the matter is that in most companies, if someone is promoted into "management" and it turns out they aren’t good at it the transition can have a detrimental effect on longer-term career opportunities. When you move on to a new company, you will be asked, "so I see you were a manager at XYZ company; this is an individual role, why are you looking to take a step backwards in your career?" Fair or not, stepping OUT of a management role is seen as a backward step. This isn’t true of every company in every industry, but it is common enough that you should think very carefully about getting onto the "management track".

WARNING: this is a politically-themed post.

In the aftermath of last night’s US Presidential election, I have to say: the GOP leadership just doesn’t *get* it. Their base, that is. In an interview on Mother Jones, of the DC RNC party attendees summed up what I see as the major issue for the GOP this election cycle: "Republicans from Mitt Romney on down let themselves get too entangled with social issues like abortion. "Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot," she said. Conservatives are "completely right on economics, but they’re completely wrong on social issues." (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/obama-romney-presidential-election-rnc-reaction)

I have plenty of fiscally conservative or moderate friends that don’t like the concept of "big government"; but most of them are socially moderate or liberal and cannot believe how extreme the candidates across the party, both incumbent and new to the race, have been platforming on social issues. Women’s rights, especially, went a long way toward tipping the scales yesterday. Many of them are not happy about being "forced" to vote either democrat or independent (lots of Gary Johnson supporters in my circle.) As one of my friends wrote,

"When you start a war on women you only need to dig one grave–because we are going to bury you in it.

I hope tonight is a wake-up call to the GOP that conservatives want our party back. You can’t be conservative and a religious fanatic. Talmudic law is not US law. Individual freedom applies to ALL citizens, not just the people who think like you. "

Government is no different than business. When you are courting a potential customer/client/audience, you need to understand what is important to them and message your brand accordingly.

I only hope that things in the US government change. Soon. I don’t want our country torn apart again in 4 years.

I have been helping a lot of friends and acquaintances with their resumes. If you have been somewhere a long time or always just seem to have your opportunities ‘land in your lap’ due to your network and your resume is a ‘formality’, here are some basics for you to work with as a template. This is based on today’s resume standards and technology, the two things anyone writing a resume needs to know.

One friend has been with the same company a dozen years, and I put this together for her. First, don’t worry about the format: content is king. Second, your best strategy is to do an information dump, and the most important things to focus on are:

1) Your most current job/s for the last 5-7 years. This is where you need to concentrate your efforts.

2) What is most important to you in your job that you want to emphasize for your next opportunity? Be realistic. Something you did on one project three years ago that you really enjoyed but only worked on for three months is *not* going to make you qualified for a career transition. Stick to things you have been doing fairly consistently, then try and build your experience around them.

3) *What is the value* each experience brings to the business? In simplest terms, how did your activities help the bottom line? (This is what hiring managers and recruiters care about.)
BR />

Here is a rough template:

Company Name

Title and dates from – to (repeat this as many times as needed for internal promotions/moves)

List out your primary duties in order of time spent then on down to even the most trivial activities.

After you have listed them out, put a point after them as to whether there was a benefit or accomplishment that helped the company/client

List out projects separately, as well as what their value or purpose was.

This is for someone that has been in a corporate, career series of jobs. Another person I have been helping has an unusual background. She has been a costume designer in the local theater scene, which is both highly competitive and drying up with the economy lately. She is looking to move into the local apparel industry (which is actually a decent goal in terms of opportunities), but is having trouble figuring out how to build out her career that is in essence a series of short-term contractor opportunities (this falls under one of those ‘portfolio careers’ where a functional resume or combo is appropriate). In her case, one of the main issues is filling out online applications. So here is my suggestion in such a situation.

Professional Experience:

Independent Contractor ‘ 1998-Present

Apparel and Costume Design

Skill set: these are your functional skills and should highlight those that are asked for in the job description(s).

Projects include: (this is where you where you will talk about the types of projects you have worked on such as period design such as Shakespearean and Italian Opera, modern musicals, mid-twentieth century fashion, etc.)

Representative clients: Seattle Opera, Issaquah Community Theater, ACT Theater, etc.

Portfolio URL: http://myportfolio.com

Education: This is actual matriculated or relevant continuing ed classes, not seminars or non-industry-standard training.
B >
Professional Affiliations and Recognition: In this case, it would be the local union or other organizations.

This works for any sort of industry that includes a multitude of clients where you exercise similar skills across the board. Any sort of actual portfolio you have is going to be your selling point, more than just your client and project list.

The most important thing to remember is you are trying to align your resume and experience with the job/s you are targeting, and that means mirroring the job requirements and desired traits as closely as possible. You need to use the industry keywords and concepts the job posting has. This is what is going to at least get you into the actual resume review.
BR />And here is your ‘golden ticket’: The more times a keyword/phrase is repeated on your resume the higher it will show stack ranked as a returned result in a keyword search.
B >

This week I have had a couple of conversations with friends of mine talking about their careers. One of them called me because she was offered a job that would be a fantastic opportunity for her in terms of her career growth, but the logistics and timing are all wrong for her (she is pregnant with her second child and it would entail a move across country in the middle of her pregnancy.) She was listing out the pros and cons of the offer, and in her mind, things stacked up *exactly* even.

Another friend interviewed earlier this year for a full-time job at Amazon.com where she has been working on contract for the last year or so. I remember when she got the interview, she wasn’t too sure about the fit with the group she was interviewing with. She ended up not getting the job, and she was actually relieved, even though she was also disappointed.

For those that are not *desperately* seeking a job, it’s difficult not to wonder at lack of enthusiasm when what appears to be a really good opportunity comes along. Sometimes an OPPORTUNITY seems really great, but when you get to the interview portion or you learn more about the organization, you realize that the job itself isn’t as appealing as what you thought it was. Maybe it’s the timing, perhaps it is the team you are interviewing with, or the manager has expectations that may be different than what has been portrayed to you. I said to both my friends that to me, the opportunity sounded amazing to them, but the actual job fell short. Both of them agreed that this was what they had been trying to clarify for themselves about what had bothered them.

It is unfortunate that a lot of organizations forget that the interview process is a two-way street. Candidates are evaluating fit as much as they are being evaluated. And in our recent tight economy, it is really difficult for some candidates to remember that you aren’t always obligated to take a job offer, especially if after a mutual exploration (phone screen, interviews) you feel that it truly isn’t a "fit" for you. If you have been exploring a potential opportunity, and something doesn’t feel right, remember that you should not discount your "gut reaction" if it seems "perfect" on the surface.