Blog

In the last week, the question of career switches has come up a couple of times. In decades past, a lot of people were able to move from one career/industry to another without too much thought. Much of this was done by a modality which is known as "hiring on potential". There is a good recruiting article that discusses how potential vs. skills recruiting differ.

http://www.ere.net/2007/03/28/hiring-for-potential-vs-skill

But note that this article was written in 2007, before the economic disaster that was 2008-2010. "Hiring on potential" is not a viable recruiting model for companies that are running lean. "Lean" means that your employees are doing at least 100%+ of their job. Here is an example. At a local well-known company, non-revenue generating business units are told they must function with 70%. What this means is that if a department tells management that they need 10 people to get all the work done in the department, then they are given 70% of those resources, or 7 people. Each person is probably going to have to actually do the job of 1.25 or 1.33 indivduals, which means that they need to be able to functionally do the job they are hired for, and have the ability and competency to take on an additional 25-30% of the departmental workload.

Additionally, "potential" is an amorphous concept. Lots of researchers have tried to quantify what will make someone a "high potential" employee. It is based on a lot of factors such as your educational history (grades and what school/s you have attended), test scores (ie SAT), IQ, and how quickly you have risen through the ranks at past/current jobs and what positive (translate STELLAR) results you have generated. Often times employees are hired and then identified as "high potential" and fast tracked with special projects and "stretch" assignments.

In addition to so many businesses running tactically (reacting vs. planning and looking far ahead/strategically) and lean, as I have mentioned in a few past postings compliance issues (legal requirements by state or federal government agencies) affect how candidates are evaluated for jobs. To reiterate these factors:

A) Companies often legally have to craft their job descriptions so that they are clear-cut in terms of experience, education, and history.
B) Due to those same legalities, organizations *cannot consider candidates that don’t meet the minimum qualifications*

C) "Minimum qualifications" are just that: attributes that candidates MUST HAVE to be considered.

For example, if a job description requires a Bachelor’s degree in a technical field, having a Bachelor’s in history doesn’t meet the bar. If it requires 2-3 years of relevant industry experience, for example commercial sales in telecommunications, then being a cashier at McDonald’s *isn’t qualified.*
BR />

So in the two recent examples I mentioned, one is an outside sales professional with experience in financial services, construction, beauty supplies and high tech asked me about transitioning to a salaried position not involving sales in the health/fitness industry in a highly depressed area (economically). I told her honestly that unless she knows the owner of the company or other inside connection, the best she could probably do is inside sales or maybe marketing, but to expect that she might need to take a pay cut for the transition. She does have a fair bit of marketing on her resume, but not nearly as much as her strong outside sales, and she has almost no experience in the health/fitness industry. To make both a career *and* industry switch at the same time is not impossible, but expect to take a pay cut IF you can find a position.

The other example was one of those acquaintances that want to take advantage of knowing a recruiter. This is one of those "son-in-law-of-a-neighbor" scenarios that is very common for those of us in the field. Most recruiters don’t mind helping out where we can, but it’s important to remember that we may not be able to do much. In this case, the candidate in question (anyone looking for a job is a "candidate" to a recruiter) just finished an MBA and wanted to get "back" into technology. Well, he hadn’t worked in the tech sector in over 10 years, and his experience wasn’t such that an MBA, even one with a technology management emphasis, will facilitate an "automatic" entry into the tech field. It is an erroneous conception, often fostered by what I consider to be patently *false advertising*, that getting an advanced degree will open up all these doors for you without relevant experience in the field. An MBA in conjunction with a solid work history can absolutely open doors in your own field and boost your earning potential, but it is not a guaranteed passport to a new industry and career switch without taking either a lateral move or potentially a title (and salary) hit to move into a new field.

I belong to Entrances, a group on Facebook that is a nexus of people looking for jobs and those that might be able to help them. Lots of discussion about the job market, trends, techniques, etc. There are recruiters, hiring managers, career coaches and other industry professionals to help job seekers with their process. It’s international, although most of the outspoken members (like yours truly) are based in the US.

Earlier this week, the founder/moderator of the group posted this question:

How do you feel about this statement regarding job descriptions?

". . . replace job descriptions with a goal setting process, in which individuals are expected to regularly indicate what they’re trying to accomplish, what their goals are and how their success is measured."

OK, my first reaction to this statement was a request by job seekers to change the way we (hiring organizations) actually write job descriptions. There were a couple of comments from folks who thought this was a brilliant idea, and then yours truly chimed in:

"I don’t think this is practical. First of all, this statement expects individuals to tell an employer what they are going to do without knowing the parameters of job itself. Goals may be different for different candidates based on their experience. As a recruiter, I may find a more senior candidate for a role that I could delineate a more compressed timeline and set of goals, conversely a more junior candidate may not be able to meet goals as stated. There is also the fact that some goals may fall under Non-disclosure agreements that are only to be shared if the candidate is brought in for interviews; discussing a company’s business plans is negligent. I think the process a company uses for measuring and setting goals should definitely be part of an initial conversation, but not as an external replacement for a detailed job description. I’m not arguing that too may job descriptions need to be refined and revamped."

Yvonne (the moderator/poster) then looked up "job description" in context, and we decided that this could also be in conjunction with resume writing, as you (as the job seeker/audience) is trying to delineate your own employment history. Put under this light, the original comment makes much more sense. But if we take it in this context, I still cannot condone it as the *only* way to share information with a potential employer.

I know job seekers have been instructed to delineate accomplishments on your resume, and this statement certainly addresses that in a meaningful way. But you cannot use the description of a process and the outcome on your resume to tell your story. Here are a couple of reasons why.

Candidates should keep in mind that not every recruiter is going know the ins and outs of every job they are working on, and if you don’t put some of the "duties" associated with your profession there are some consequences where you will be screening yourself *out* of the job market. Recruiting, like any other job, takes time to learn. For example, I am generally a Technical Recruiter in the software industry. However, I’ve recruited in the Legal and Medical industries, and as a corporate technical recruiter I also hire for support positions such as marketing, operations, finance, etc. My knowledge about what jobs entail isn’t *just* software engineers. That being said, every time a new type of position opens up, it’s a learning process for me. I’m a very senior recruiter with a lot of experience behind me, but many recruiters are either new to our profession, new to an industry, or even generalists that are handling the recruiting for their businesses but recruiting isn’t their forte (either through choice or circumstance). Keeping that in mind, be aware that they may not send your resume to a hiring manager because they are just looking at numbers/results, not at what the actual daily/weekly/monthly processes are.

Here is where I’m going to talk some more about what *I* do on a daily basis. For every job, (and I don’t care whether it’s a janitor for the local sports complex, an assistant manager for the local Walmart, or the VP of an international widget company), there are set minimum qualifications for the job. They could be as simple as "HS diploma or equivalent and at least six months of professional experience" on up to a whole host of very specialized skills and certifications. But as the first human pass at applicants, my job is to make sure that candidates fit the very basic job qualifications, and if a job description has the term "require" or "must have" that means exactly what it says: if you don’t have that background, *you aren’t qualified for the job*. If a job requires a Bachelor’s degree and you are five credits shy, you aren’t a qualified applicant. I’ve discussed requirements previously, so won’t linger on them. So applying for jobs you are patently *unqualified* for is really just an exercise in futility for you if you really want the job.

Here is how I, as a recruiter, identify qualified candidates for a job. I take the minimum qualifications and build what is known as a Boolean logic string, otherwise known as a keyword search. Remember, keyword searching is based on very specific keywords. If a job requires:

6+ years of medical device sales

-Demonstrated ability to cold-call and external lead generation for business development

-2+ years using Salesforce
B />

and your resume says:
-"$200 million in sales and $350 million service contract to the largest hospital system in the greater Boston area".

and you never mention Salesforce, cold-calling, medical devices, or lead-generation then you will never even make it past a first screen because those are the keywords a recruiter will be using. The *result* of your efforts is the accomplishment that shows that you are a star performer, but you need to tell me how you achieve those results. Hiring managers don’t just want to know the "what", they want to know the "how" as well. The keyword search will pull up generally qualified candidates, but it takes a human eye to determine if the experience indicated fits the *amount* of experience and whether or not it is current. This is one of the very main reasons NOT to use a functional resume unless you are in a portfolio industry. My hiring managers *won’t accept functional resumes* and if I cannot determine your level of experience from a first pass, I don’t have the time to dig deeper and try and piece together your job history. It’s YOUR responsibility to give me the information in such a way that I assess it and use it. I do read every resume that comes up in a first keyword search, but I only truly consider those that match the requirements, and this is pretty standard for most reputable recruiters.

I’ve mentioned before why we use Boolean/keyword searches and minmnum qualifications. It isn’t just to "weed out" people. A lot of it has to do with government regulations for EEOC, AA (Affirmative Action), and USCIS (US Immigration) compliance. There is also the fact that as our world becomes infinitely more connected and technology allows people access to even more jobs that we get more and more applicants for each job. And when I have 543 applicants for a Marketing Manager job, I have to be able to narrow the search to the *qualified* applicants to pass along to the hiring manager. Especially with titles that are extremely broad, "defining" the job becomes even more critical. If my hiring manager doesn’t have budget for relocation, I’m not going to consider someone who lives outside of the local area. (This is where you can help yourself by using a local address if you are planning on moving somewhere, say as a "trailing spouse" to someone that is being relocated.)
B >

I will be the first to admit that there are many, many MANY poorly written job postings out there, but I have never seen one that doesn’t have a set of requirements. They can broad or highly specific, but this is the starting point for all recruiting and also how candidates should go about structuring their own work experience to make sure they at least make an initial impression.

Last night I was talking to a friend of mine that is hoping to move to the Bay area for work in the next few weeks/months. She has a place to live down there and is willing to move her own belongings so she doesn’t even need (although would welcome) employer-provided assistance with relocating. She’s also looking at jobs in Seattle as well, and is open to whatever comes her way. She left her last job at one of the leading area tech companies as a vendor, and has been looking for jobs in both areas for the last few weeks. She has been finding an odd trend in her phone screens and responses to her networking: either she is too generalized in her skill sets, or too specialized. I told her that this says to me her resume isn’t doing the job for her. She has some really good experience, but she needs to re-format it to speak to the sorts of jobs she is applying for.

Here is the other thing: recruiting and working norms in the Bay area are much different than they are in Seattle (or Boston, or NYC, or Atlanta or any other city.) What do I mean by that? Well, San Francisco, San Jose, Sunnyvale and environs have two very distinct types of technology companies but a unified culture: established, global companies and startupville. And the reason I say there is a hybrid is because there are technical behemoths in the area like Google and Facebook that are ‘established’ and ‘global’ but very culturally startup environments. Then you have companies like eBay, Symantec, and Yahoo that have been around for a very long time and are more ‘traditional’. There are also the gazillion startups that are succeeding and failing every day. As a recruiter, I can tell you that the candidate pool and profile is influenced by the whole startup culture. This means that candidates tend to jump jobs fairly regularly, and expect to be working on really interesting and cool stuff and stay engaged or they go elsewhere. A stable job history is *less important* there than it is elsewhere. Hiring managers don’t WANT stable job histories; it isn’t the norm, and it makes candidates less attractive, more boring, less agile.

Seattle, on the other hand, is an area of stability. Hiring managers want candidates that don’t job hop, with the exception of contractors. And that is largely because of Microsoft and Boeing, both companies that rely heavily on contract and contingent workforce augmentation and have created an acceptance of contracting as an acceptable career profile. But they prefer your contracts to be at least a year or more long. And when I’m working with my hiring managers looking for candidates and we are identifying where the top talent comes from, we have a list of the ‘usual suspects’: Microsoft, Starbuck’s, Amazon, Expedia, T-Mobile, AT&T and a handful of smaller companies occupying similar spaces that we do. That is one side of the tech market (software and internet/e-commerce) in Seattle; the other sides are biotech and aerospace. There are other industries in Seattle such as education, medicine, PR/Advertising, hospitality/travel, and fashion. But tech is what has been fueling a majority of the local economy the last 20 years, so much of the local economy and cultural workplace is wrapped endemic to the *workforce*. Here’s another truism: there are very few companies in Seattle that don’t use Microsoft Office as their default email/word processing/spreadsheet software. Why? Because so much of the local workforce has worked AT Microsoft that it’s what we know professionally.


In the DC Metro area, if you are in IT, it is almost assumed that you will have some sort of secret clearance, and that it commands more money across the board. This very simply has to do with the government being the biggest employer or subcontract client in the area. It’s a commodity. Here in Seattle, it means very little in the tech market, because we are mostly consumer-focused. < />

My point is, when you are looking for a new position, it’s just as important to learn the how the local employer culture works. And if you are coming out of a long time at one company, learn about what the local culture is like and why it has evolved (the why is important because it helps structure your resume appropriately and you prepare for interviews.)

I was having a chat last night with a friend of mine, talking about her lovely, talented but sometimes unrealistic adult daughter. Who is just finishing up her Master’s degree, and thinking of getting a Ph. D. I stunned my friend by saying, "I thought you said she wants to get a job? Why is she getting her PhD"?

So here is the truth of the matter: unless you are going into a research field or teaching at the University level, a PhD is often overkill and you will have a hard time finding a job. And when I say "research" I mean R & D for a product company (including software, pharma, aerospace etc.), the government, or… a university. The same conversation happened later in the evening with another set of friends; one of them had a sibling that was having a hard time finding a job as a teacher – his Master’s in Education was *barring* his entry into the public school teaching sector. (Exception – if you have have a math/science degree you are highly employable with that M Ed.)

The reason for this? Purely economic: the more advanced the education, the more a candidate (rightfully) expects to be paid. And although the market is picking up, with very few exceptions organizations are looking for a balance of education and experience. There are a few exceptions. Getting an MBA is rarely a bad idea, and an even better idea if you are doing it after having a few years of industry experience under your belt. But keep in mind that the more people that receive MBA’s, the less valuable a commodity it becomes, and the less it is worth in terms of money on the job. Some fields require advance degrees to become licensed, like social work or law.

And then there are those people that keep getting more and more education or keep changing their majors, or get a double major and triple minor. What does that tell me? Well, it can actually go a couple of ways. If someone keeps changing their major, to me that means they cannot make a commitment, are indecisive, lack focus, and possibly that they are too immature to hire for a job that requires them to concentrate on one main area in a profession. For those students that are obvious overachievers, I fear that they will be lost in jobs that require them to actually structure their own time and problem-solve. Overachievers typically seem to come from backgrounds where they have a lot of structure imposed on them externally, and don’t have a lot of time to figure out how to occupy themselves.

So make sure that you aren’t over-educating yourself out of a job as you keep on racking up more student loans in the course of becoming more "well rounded". It’s possible to be *too* rounded.

These are examples of behaviors that candidates have exhibited in interviews that have cost them not only the job they were interviewed for, but also any future opportunities with the same company. They from my own experience as well as stories told to me by other recruiters, interviewers, and hiring managers of my acquaintance.

1) Swearing in an interview. It is inappropriate to use foul language in an interview. It would seem to be common sense, but we recently had a candidate who dropped the "f bomb" during a lunch interview.

2) Making a racial slur. Even if you feel "sympatico" with an interviewer, remember that you are in a professional environment and that it is never okay to denigrate anyone on the basis of ethnicity, lifestyle, religion, marital/family status, etc. Ever.

3) Ask about *another* job you are interested in, not the one you are interviewing for. The time to do that is when you are talking to the recruiter, not when you are actually in the interviews. If you don’t want the job or are actually more interested in a different position, don’t waste everyone’s time trying to weasel your way into another position. This has happened twice in the last couple of months and all it does is turn the hiring manager off.

4) Pull your cell phone out to either check your mail/texts or take a call. One of my colleagues was sitting in the final interview with the General Manager and the candidate. The candidate’s phone rang and he took the call. It cost him an offer for the job.

5) Moderation in your personal presentation. A team once went with another candidate because one guy had on so much cologne it took a whole day to air out the interview room.

6) Maintain *eye* contact. From a female friend of mine: At a former employer, I was once part of a panel interview with a candidate. The entire hour, he did not look at the face of any interviewer…he only looked at my chest.

7) Dress for success. "Best ever- candidate shows up to interview in full Japanese kimono outfit. " There is nothing wrong with being proud of your cultural heritage, but part of the interview process is making sure there is a cultural fit. If in doubt, ask the recruiter what the dress code is for the interviews.

8) Personal hygiene is a must: I had one guy pick his nose during and interview and then ask to shake hands.

9) Communication skills: Candidate talked way too much about his personal life during the interview. Just because *you* think it’s a positive that you do" X", that doesn’t mean other people will agree.

10) Market yourself positively. When interviewing a candidate, we got to the question "tell me about your weaknesses" , and she said she has never been able to throw away a piece of paper, and has organized stacks of paper all surrounding her desk, and then kept going on about other weaknesses….we asked her to stop and tell us about some of her strengths.

11) Preparing for the job and interview (i.e. a portfolio): My company was interviewing a web developer who came in for a group interview. I Googled him to see what kinds of work had his name on it, and a blog site popped up. I went to it and it was broken; a syntax error in a file. I brought it to his attention during the interview, and he said basically that he hadn’t seen the need to fix it. A few days later it was still broken.

It truly amazes recruiters, interviewers and hiring managers what some candidates will (not) do during interviews.

There has been a lot of publicity around employers requesting Facebook passwords for employees, or asking candidates to log into their personal FB accounts during interviews. Recently, Facebook endorsed a bill in MI that would make it illegal to request passwords to personal account information. "Employers most often want to tap into employees’ and job applicants’ Facebook pages, where personal and family photos, and private information such as religious and political affiliations and relationship status is readily available…It’s a very direct way to get around all the pre-employment laws that have been put in place to protect people over the last 35 to 40 years or so," said Paul Opsommer -R, sponsor and state representative. This quote is the gist of the problem. It is a blatant violation of the Terms of Use every user signs. It also invades the privacy of anyone that is identified via your account in photos, wall posts, relationship status. Maryland is also poised to enact a bill that would be the first in the country addressing this issue. <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/254181/maryland_leads_nation_in_banning_employers_facebook_snooping_efforts.html"></a>

As our society becomes so much more transparent, it is almost inevitable that privacy policies will arise. We check in places with our phones, post our relationship status on Facebook, Tweet when we are going on vacation and sharing photos from Maui. Some employers are using this shift in social habits as an advantage to utilize free tools to help make determinations about employee and candidate suitability for their organization. Professionally, my own stance is that this whole practice is an invasion of privacy, unreliable, and too much of a risk for discrimination lawsuit. The only times I ever use Facebook for "work" is to post a job and sometimes to send a candidate a message.

There are only a few choices for candidates that are concerned about practices like this. Before you go into the interview, ask the HR/Recruiting representative that you are working with if this is a practice their company employs; this will allow you to make the decision as to whether or not you want to go forward. In the interview, there are a few other options. The first is, of course, refuse to do this during an interview; the choice may be dependent on how badly you need the job. You can say it is a violation of your terms and services; you can say you don’t remember your password; you can tell the interviewer/s that you are not comfortable allowing them access to other people’s information, and that this practice is a violation of HIPAA (an HR professional should know what this means). You could lie and tell them that you don’t have a Facebook account and direct them to your LinkedIn profile (but keep in mind if you do that, and an employer researches and finds an account that is under your name and they can identify you, this is grounds for disqualification for any jobs.)

Other choices involve the content of your account. You could delete your entire account and start over with a new name (maybe a different spelling on the one you use or by a nickname). Delete anything that might be "damning" such as risque photos/status updates, information such as your relationship status/gender interest, religious views, and of course any posts by you or anyone else on your wall that could reflect badly on your general character. Lock down your profile tightly. Be very careful what you "like" in terms of any of the above mentioned subjects.

A longer term view might be to make your state and federal congressional representatives and senators aware of the fact that you find this is intolerable. It is only by voicing your views that the government will consider putting protections in place to guard your privacy. I foresee this practice being banned eventually but until then it is your choice and responsibility to safeguard your online profiles, including those of your circle of contacts.

‘Tis that time of year again for recruiting organizations: spring career fair season. Yesterday one of my colleagues and I attended the University of Washington spring career fair, which is attended by both graduating seniors and some freshman/sophomore/junior students looking for internships. And it never fails to amaze me, year after year, that the same conversations take place.

We get in about 30-60 minutes early to set up our table. Putting out flyers, giveaways (pens, lanyards and candy this year). Then we wait for the first rush, which usually lasts for an hour or so. And here is the basic exchange between the employer and the prospective employee.

Student walks up. ‘Hi, my name is John Doe. What does your company do and what are you hiring for?’

Me: ‘Hi John, I’m Kristen. We are a software and media company. What are you looking for, an internship or a full-time position? What is your major or area of concentration?’

My colleague and I each had this conversation about 100 times each. Now, mind you, there are flyers on the table right in front of both of us that tell you about the company, the types of internships and entry level positions we usually hire for.

I’ve attended a *lot* of job fairs in my career as a recruiter, both for collegiate and industry audiences. And I must tell you that it does not make a good impression if you come to a table and say ‘what do you do’? I’ve never attended a job fair where we didn’t send a blurb on ahead about the company and sample job descriptions or actual positions we are hiring for.

Respectfully, I would request a few things from students looking for any sort of position. Please, research the companies you will be talking to. Just a basic knowledge of their industry should suffice. Keep in mind that I have provided you with information that you can easily look up. When you walk up to me, it is the first time I’ve ever seen and heard of you.

A better approach would be:

Student: ‘Hi, my name is John Doe, and I’m a junior Computer Science major looking for a summer internship in application development. I see that your software media company has listed that you are hiring software interns; can you tell me how I would apply, and how long the internships are?’

This allows me to arrow in directly on how to answer your question, give you the information I have, and quickly move on to speaking with the three people standing behind you. It also saves me from having to pry out of you that you are theater major and to disappoint you after we’ve established a rapport. It also sounds more polished and professional and that you have put time into the first impression you are making.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: if you are sincerely looking for a job, you want to portray yourself as a match for a given position (matching your experience to the job description), and making it as easy as possible for the recruiter to contact you.

Today I received an email with two attachments. It was an employee referral for a specific position I have open. I opened the first version of the candidate’s resume. At the top was her name. Then her professional history (which is fine). But I sent an email to the sender: "where is her contact information?!" Turns out it was at the bottom, as part of the footer. Which meant that I had to go to the bottom, hit the "edit footer" option, then highlight her email address. OK folks, that is a PITA for me. The only reason I actually opened it was because it was a referral from one of my managers. If I got that sort of resume from a random document, I wouldn’t even bother.

Then of course I read the resume. She was interested in a specific position, but she hadn’t read the job description. Obviously. She had none of the *absolutely required* skills that this position called for.

Then I was looking at applicants to my jobs in our applicant tracking database today. And I saw something *so bizarre* that I made it my "joke of the day" resume to my team.

Keeping in mind that applying for a job via our website is a *legal application*. This particular candidate had given her name as "Lady Jane". First name Lady. Last name Jane. (Actually it was not Jane but it was a common female English name.) Now, she had applied for a position as a software tester. But almost her entire resume was filled up with a list of artistic projects. And the website links she included as her "portfolio" were broken. Her objective was quite esoteric and totally unrelated to the job she applied for (it was about using art to make the universe a better place). The kicker was that she claimed to be a Knight of Malta. Which, while interesting, has no real place on a resume unless you are applying for a humanitarian or positions with a religious institution. *From the Order’s FAQ:

"10) How does one become a member of the Order?

One can become a member of the Order of Malta only by invitation. Only persons of undoubted Catholic morality and practice, who have acquired merit with regard to the Sovereign Order, its institutions and its works are eligible for admission.

To be fair, in scrutinizing her work history, she did mention working in software testing. But they were just that: mentions, with no supporting information such as tools, products, or methodologies.
The conclusion I (and my co-workers reached) is that she is just applying to jobs for her unemployment claim. And other than the amusement factor, it’s a waste of my *valuable* time.

So make sure that when you are crafting your resume for specific jobs that you are doing your best to actually look right for a position.

There is a common misconception that when you are being offered a job everything is negotiable. It is an unfortunate truism that in the last twenty years, companies have been streamlining and standardizing business processes such as benefits and compensation to deal with both global competition as well as changing working conditions and legal requirements.

The general rule of thumb is that the smaller the company, the more flexible they are with policies. As a company becomes larger it needs to put policies and procedures in place that benefit the majority of the employees. If it is a publicly traded company, those items can be even more stringently controlled.

Those things that generally have some flexibility in terms of negotiability are generally monetary: base salary (within a set range, which I’ve discussed before), sign-on bonus, and sometimes stock/equity. Titles can sometimes also be negotiated (for example putting "Senior" in front of it if your experience warrants it.)

As a recruiter making offers fairly regularly, the three things that people try to negotiate on that are generally non-negotiable (with me as the recruiter) unless you are at the VP level or above:

Vacation Time

Flexible Work Schedule
BR />Telecommuting

Vacation is generally pre-set based on seniority, and earned as you work (ie you receive .6 hours of paid vacation for every 40 hours you work.) If you are starting a new job and have vacation already planned, most companies allow you to either take it unpaid or apply un-earned vacation (causing a deficit; if you leave your job before you accrue this time, it may be taken out of your final pay check). This is something you want to discuss with your potential employer.

A person’s work schedule is something that is determined by the (hiring) manager, not HR/Recruiting. For example, I recently hired someone that had a personal commitment and asked if he could work 80% of FT until mid-April (32 hours a week). The manager was fine with it and we actually amended his offer letter, and will revisit the terms of his offer in April. If someone needs to work outside of "core" business hours, they need to discuss it with the manager *before* they accept the job.

Telecommuting isn’t a viable work style for every company, and in the Seattle area it is often used as a retention tool for valued/high producing employees as opposed to a recruiting tool . Sometimes if there is a dearth of office space it is necessitated, but that should be in the job description. Most companies that have the infrastructure have flexible policies about occasional telecommuting (ie you are waiting for the plumber, so you work from home in the morning) or if you have family obligations like an ill child, but that is the exception rather than the norm. And, again, it is generally at the discretion of the hiring manager, and subject to a company’s stated policies.

If you are someone that believes you absolutely must have more flexibility with your work environment, being the employee of someone else may not be the best professional route for you. More and more people are realizing that consulting is a better lifestyle for them, and there are tons of resources to find out more about being a 1099 consultant out there.

I’m going to put this disclaimer here right off the bat: I am not an immigration expert, so I am not offering legal advice. My observations are based on my experience as a recruiter and in no way, shape or form should be construed as legal advice.

I get contacted fairly frequently by professionals around the world asking my help finding them a job in the US. These candidates don’t live in the US, but they really want to come here to work. Many of them think that all they need to do is just impress an employer enough and they will be able to get a visa with little or no problem. But the reality is that US immigration is a tough nut to crack and that someone needs to be in an exceptionally high demand field where a sponsoring company can prove that there are not very many citizens or permanent residents ("green card" holders) to fill the jobs OR that they are globally recognized as experts in their field (I’ve used this category visa when I was recruiting PhD’s for Microsoft Research.)

My experience is pretty much limited to technical (software/IT) professionals. I’ve used the H1-B, O (that "expert" visa), TN (North America – Canada and Mexico), L (intracompany transfer), E3 (Australia, Chile) and the educational work (CPT/OPT) visas in my line of work. First off, *very few companies sponsor corporate H1-B candidates*. It is expensive, and the biggest challenge is often the wait: a visa that is approved in April often cannot be used until October, and most employers just cannot wait that long to fill a position. When a job is opened, it is an *immediate* need.

Instead of going into all kinds of detail, I’m going to give you a few observations and suggestions. The easiest way to get a US job from outside our borders is to work for a US subsidiary in another country and then get an intracompany transfer. It’s akin to going to a branch campus of a school with very tough admission standards and then transferring to the main campus. Speaking of schools…you can come to the US to get a degree or graduate degree and use your CPT/OPT as a springboard. But here is the chance you take with your CPT/OPT Visa: it does not automatically guarantee that the company that you are working for will offer you an H1-B. I’ve lost two great candidates in the last year because my company will not put in writing that we will sponsor someone at the end of their OPT.

There are many international consulting companies that have access to H1-B visas for their employees. Look up "global management consulting companies". My experience is mainly with companies in India and Ethiopia for technical employees, but there may be other options in other countries.

But another suggestion is to consider moving to Canada, which is very similar to the US in terms of culture, standard of living, and opportunity with a much higher chance of getting a visa; Canada seems more welcoming to global professionals. If you are thinking of using a Canadian work permit to try for a TN, you need to note that to be eligible for a TN Visa, you must be a Canadian citizen; it is not enough to be a resident of the country with a valid work permit.

I freely admit that Americans take the quality of our freedoms, our general standard of living, the opportunity to make personal wealth based on a capitalistic economy, and the legal protections we have as workers for granted. I believe in a diverse workplace and global economy. But I need aspiring professionals to understand the realities *I* face as a recruiter and the limitations I have.