Judge the messenger, not the message
It's counterintuitive, but this is how hiring managers should be judging their applicants. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world and all of us are judged on those thirty minutes or an hour, a writing or editing test thrown our way to assess our worth.
Imagine if, wanting to choose a husband, you threw an hour-long quiz his way: "Here, catch!"
He: "But, but...?"
You: "Seriously! Time's a-tickin'. Go! Answer the 60 questions. I will be in the other room."
...
The heart would race, the sweat would bead.
He would turn in his answers, half of which would be "wrong" in your book.
You: "I am sorry, but you lack skills for this job."
He: "But we are crazy about each other! You said I was cu--"
You: "Sorry. You failed the test. Next!"
...
This is how we're judged in this very competitive job market, which makes it all the more important for editors and hiring managers to fine tune their sensitivity -- not only for the sake of not hurting applicants' feelings, but for the purpose of finding the best candidates.
For example, if we are told we "lack the skills" for a job, this is probably just the impression we gave to an employer during a one-hour interview or as a result of a test.
On the other hand, we may sweep someone off her feet during the interview, land a job, and then find we are completely unsuited for the role.
Granted, from the editorial director's POV it's a stressful process. Many times they're being deluged with hundreds of applications, choosing only a precious few for the interview. At that point, applicants must bring their A-game. I get it.
But bringing the A game, being the best salesperson, being able to put a toothache, a leaky faucet, a cheating husband, a broken heart, etc. on hold for that one-hour period of judgement can be a really arduous task.
I suggest that if a hiring manager interviews an applicant and that prospective hiree performs badly that he be given a second chance.
It's just plain ignorant to tell an applicant he "lacks skills" for a job if he's been doing that exact thing for decades. Imagine Michael Phelps trying out for a position of swim coach, then showing up and not swimming well (for whatever reason--maybe he is getting over the flu).
"Sorry, Michael. You lack the skills for the job."
Clearly then, it's not Michael Phelps who lacks skills.
Imagine if, wanting to choose a husband, you threw an hour-long quiz his way: "Here, catch!"
He: "But, but...?"
You: "Seriously! Time's a-tickin'. Go! Answer the 60 questions. I will be in the other room."
...
The heart would race, the sweat would bead.
He would turn in his answers, half of which would be "wrong" in your book.
You: "I am sorry, but you lack skills for this job."
He: "But we are crazy about each other! You said I was cu--"
You: "Sorry. You failed the test. Next!"
...
This is how we're judged in this very competitive job market, which makes it all the more important for editors and hiring managers to fine tune their sensitivity -- not only for the sake of not hurting applicants' feelings, but for the purpose of finding the best candidates.
For example, if we are told we "lack the skills" for a job, this is probably just the impression we gave to an employer during a one-hour interview or as a result of a test.
On the other hand, we may sweep someone off her feet during the interview, land a job, and then find we are completely unsuited for the role.
Granted, from the editorial director's POV it's a stressful process. Many times they're being deluged with hundreds of applications, choosing only a precious few for the interview. At that point, applicants must bring their A-game. I get it.
But bringing the A game, being the best salesperson, being able to put a toothache, a leaky faucet, a cheating husband, a broken heart, etc. on hold for that one-hour period of judgement can be a really arduous task.
I suggest that if a hiring manager interviews an applicant and that prospective hiree performs badly that he be given a second chance.
It's just plain ignorant to tell an applicant he "lacks skills" for a job if he's been doing that exact thing for decades. Imagine Michael Phelps trying out for a position of swim coach, then showing up and not swimming well (for whatever reason--maybe he is getting over the flu).
"Sorry, Michael. You lack the skills for the job."
Clearly then, it's not Michael Phelps who lacks skills.
Comments
Post a Comment