How to follow-up after an interview

Creating a good impression to a potential new employer can be a stressful process. We all know the importance of first impressions, but the do’s and don’ts of leaving a lasting impression are not quite so clear.

So when you’ve attended an interview and come away knowing that you will be devastated if you don’t secure the role, it’s natural to start worrying about whether there’s more you could have done during the meeting and if there’s something else you can do now to increase your chances.

Maybe I should have said this? Maybe I shouldn’t have said that? Perhaps I should connect with her on LinkedIn and stress again how keen I am? Or maybe send an email?

Now, when you’ve arranged the interview directly with the employer (with no third party/recruiter involved) this may well be wise. It should in fact have been actively encouraged by the employer. They need to know if the role appeals to you and whether you would like to progress to the next stage if invited.

However, if you’ve been introduced to the employer by a recruiter, they have intentionally appointed a third party to help with the process and will anticipate feedback to be collected and passed through via the appointed recruiter. Very rarely in this circumstance will it be encouraged or expected to make contact directly. Contrary to some advice I’ve read online!

This needn’t take away the level of influence you can still have on the process however. Firstly, be quick in debriefing your recruiter on how the interview went. The quicker you can provide feedback to them, the quicker they can pass this through to their client, which will be appreciated. It’s also important to be specific in what appealed to you about the opportunity and how and where you feel your experience/skills will be well utilised.

It may also be worthwhile putting together a carefully composed email to your recruiter as a follow-up, expressing your interest in the position. Discuss it with them and see if they feel it could help for them to forward the email on themselves. This won’t come across as pushy as sending it direct, but will still give you the opportunity to get your message through.

Salary Expectations - how do you know what to aim for?

Having recently compiled data from across the UK for a salary survey we conducted in our Legal Accounts division (results to be published on our website in July if you’re interested!), it got me thinking about how it will affect people’s expectations of their worth. And by “worth”, I’m talking specifically about the basic salary they are paid by their employer to do the job they do.

A common mistake I see people making is relying purely on one source of information and believing that to be sufficient evidence. I do hope that our salary survey will prove to be a useful, accurate measure for employers and employees alike, but it should only be viewed as guidance. For example: the level of responsibility and day to day duties of a Management Accountant can differ widely from one firm to another, so going by a job title on a salary survey alone is not sufficient.

Another source of information that often misleads us is job vacancies. An individual might read through a job advert, mentally tick off all the duties and reach the conclusion they should therefore expect to be paid the top end of the salary bracket. Securing interviews for these positions will provide even stronger evidence that this is achievable. Of course, on some occasions this will indeed be the case, but if you’re only reaching interview stages and not securing offers, it may suggest otherwise.  

As a recruiter working in a very niche market for many years, I like to think I have a pretty accurate view of what is an achievable salary expectation from those I meet with, and when conducting interviews with jobseekers, it’s an important part of the registration process to ensure that expectations are realistic, which from time to time does involve bursting a few balloons.

Naturally, I don’t expect everyone to take my views as gospel (I’d like it, but I don’t expect it), but you can generally rely on experienced recruiters to have a good understanding of what would constitute a reasonable expectation. It’s sensible to look out for relevant salary surveys and vacancy adverts to see what might be achievable, but be wary of placing too high an emphasis on them as you might find you’re pricing yourself out of being considered for good opportunities.

Job Boards and the battle for quantity over quality...

With the threat of social media networks moving in on their territory, job boards have had to work a little harder recently to convince their clients (e.g. recruiters and direct employers) that their services are still as valuable as ever and that their well established business models can withstand the threat posed by LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook.

This is most notably evident through the significant increase on advertising spend to increase the number of job seekers registering on their sites. The campaigns seem to be working, with a number of job boards boasting record traffic statistics.

So what does this mean for the clients who advertise vacancies on their sites? Does it improve their chances of finding the best candidates? Possibly. Does it mean they will receive more applications? Certainly. Does it mean they’ll spend more time filtering out irrelevant applicants? Definitely. Quantity is assured, quality isn’t.

One job board even seems to actively promote the ‘spray and pray’ method of searching for work in their TV campaign, implying that a wholesale change in career profession is achieved as simply as sending your CV off for something that catches your interest!

Ask any recruiter what they dislike about using job boards and they’ll all tell you the same thing; too many irrelevant applications. Job board users can send their CV’s to countless vacancies in no time, regardless if they do not have the experience requested in the vacancy advert.  Very few recruiters will tell you they just want even more applications.

There is also a logical argument to say that this focus on volume has a negative impact on the job seekers who use the job boards in the manner intended. Relevant applicants will inevitably get overlooked from time to time when their CV’s are buried in amongst hundreds of irrelevant applications.

So what do I think job boards could do to improve their services? Here are a few suggestions:

·         If a job seeker is applying for a very wide range of different role types, at salary levels that indicate a reasonable level of previous experience might required, send a ‘yellow card’ email, asking them to be more realistic with their applications, or face restrictions on the number of applications they can make.

·         Limit the number of applications job seekers can make daily. This might be a bit extreme, but it would encourage job seekers to spend more time reading through adverts to see if they have a realistic chance of being considered.

·         Universal use of filtering questions. Some job boards have this feature, but couldn’t they all allow the advertisers to pose some yes/no experience questions that filter out unsuccessful applicants?

·         Require more information to be entered manually by the job seeker for each application (to reduce spamming). Adding a layer of process in to the application process will take more effort on the job seekers part. Perhaps allow the vacancy advertiser the option to add a specific question field, relating to the advert (e.g. ‘please describe your involvement in a systems upgrade project’).

So when I receive a promotional email from a job board telling me that their new TV advertising campaign is about to start, I now find my finger pressing the delete button before I’ve reached the end of the first sentence.

What do you think of the above suggestions? Would they improve service for you as a recruiter/hiring manager? Or would they be too restrictive as a job seeker? Or have you got any better suggestions? Please comment below…

Yahoo and the flexible working debate...

Since publishing my last blog on flexible working, the topic has hit the headlines in a big way with debate raging amongst the business community on the pros & cons of working from home. I’d love to say it was my blog that triggered all this, but I suspect it may have had slightly more to do with the leaked internal memo from an HR representative at Yahoo, informing their staff that the business was putting an end to all “work from home arrangements”.  

The tone of the memo suggests that flexible working isn't working at Yahoo, and the move was to encourage greater collaboration between staff by working side by side – literally.

This bold move, driven by CEO, Marissa Mayer, has been widely criticised as being a backwards step, with accusations that Mayer is “out of touch” with the modern working demographic (not helped by reports that she paid to have a personal nursery built adjacent to her offices in order to be closer to her son).

There have subsequently been numerous blogs and articles quoting unnamed members of Yahoo staff who've said that people have indeed been abusing the system and that the move is a necessary change in culture to help weed out the slackers who are holding the business back.

(Photo by Chiot's Run)

So what will be the outcome of this change at Yahoo? There may well be an improvement in output from some of those who have slacked off when unsupervised, but are these really employees you’d want to retain in a business? If they’re just plain lazy, presumably they’ll now just take their foot off the gas at the first opportunity anyway; when their manager is away, for example. Or on lunch. Or in meetings. Are they really going to be monitored around the clock?

And what about those employees who are currently productive when working from home? Will they be even more productive in the workplace? Or will they just resent the change in circumstance and look elsewhere, to join a business that trusts them enough to allow them to retain their current working arrangements? That could signal a mass exodus of talent if so, and when hiring to replace these individuals, Yahoo is unlikely to appeal to those looking for a degree of flexibility on work/life balance.

To me, a blanket ban on working from home seems a step too far. Flexible working is a privilege that requires trust between employer and employee, but managed properly it can and will work for most businesses. It may mean getting everyone together for face to face meetings on a regular basis, and there may be limitations on the percentage of time individuals can spend away from the office, but there is usually a balance that can work for all parties. And if someone just can’t motivate themselves to work from home, they should be given the opportunity to work in the office or to find work elsewhere. Why let them spoil the system for everyone else?

What to do if recruiters don't seem to be helping you?

Firstly, I want to start this blog by stressing that it’s in every recruiter’s interest to help a job seeker secure new employment. If there is a reasonable chance they can help, they will certainly try to do so. 

There are however plenty of instances where a recruiter feels they are unable to assist. This could be for a number of reasons; some perfectly logical, and some based on the recruiters own instincts. 

They may for example concentrate on permanent vacancies and struggle to secure interviews for individuals with a series of temporary placements over a number of years (logical). Or they may just feel they have met with several other individuals with similar experience who they feel would be more likely to be of interest to their clients (instinct).

So what do you do when you find yourself in a position where the recruiters who hold the vacancies you are interested in don’t seem able to able or willing to help you? 

Firstly, you need to assess whether it’s just the market conditions that are the hold up (perfectly likely over the last few years). If not, you need to get some honest feedback from them. It may be that you’re being unrealistic in the opportunities you are applying for (lacking suitable skills & experience, being overqualified, being too expensive etc), or it may be for reasons an inexperienced recruiter is a little uncomfortable raising with you (e.g. poor grammar on written communications with them, concern over interpersonal skills, your approach, etc). Try to find out the issue and in some circumstances, be willing to take on constructive feedback.

Whatever it may be, it’s never personal and can be invaluable feedback to take on board. Remember that a recruiter has every incentive to place you with their clients and will want to do so if they can. If you can take their feedback and use it, it’s likely to have a positive impact on your career prospects.

It may mean having to reassess your career expectations, even if only for the short term. If several recruiters have fed back to you that you don’t have the level or type of experience required for the move you want to make, they could be on to something. In this circumstance, can they give some advice on how to address this or keep you posted on stepping stone opportunities that can get you there? 

If you find that you’re still banging your head against a brick wall and getting nowhere with your job search through recruiters, you may experience more success applying for roles directly with employers. Work out which firms you’d like to work for and add the ‘Careers’ page of their website in to a ‘job search’ folder on your internet browser. Check the sites weekly to see if any new suitable positions have become available. 

A bit of networking (real life and social) could also strike gold. Speak to your network of contacts and former colleagues to ensure they know you’re looking for a move. Make sure you have a professional online profile, by setting up an account on LinkedIn and update it frequently.

Why selective recruiters can help you more than 'Yes-Men'

Although it's frustrating when a recruiter doesn't feel you have quite the right experience for a vacancy, you're in fact more likely to be successful in securing interviews through them than you are with a recruiter who is prepared to forward your CV to any opportunity you show an interest in.

I often hear of individuals being forwarded for vacancies when they clearly don't have the experience I know the employer requires. Most of these applications will be rejected at CV submission stage, but some will be invited through to a difficult interview which they have no real chance of progressing through. 

This is where the problem lies. The recruiter has got it wrong, and in the employers eyes this raises a doubt over the credibility of future recommendations by this recruiter, especially if it's not a one-off. Conversely those recruiters who consistently prove to understand the profile of individual required will develop a stronger relationship with their clients and their recommendations will carry more weight - to the point where the employer will trust the recruiters judgement rather than decide who to invite in purely based on CV's. 

A recruiter will generally have a much clearer picture of what their client is looking for than is evident in a job description or an online vacancy advert. They'll also know the availability of other interested applicants which will further help to profile who is likely to get an interview and who may not. 

Although it will be frustrating, if they're giving you open and honest feedback as to why they don't feel you would secure an interview, the chances are they'll continue to get more and more repeat business from their clients and will have something that is suitable for you further down the line, and when they do, you'll stand a very good chance of securing an interview through them.

Researching an employer ahead of an interview

Everyone knows they've got to do it. The majority will spend time on it. But how many see value in it, other than to prove during interview that they've done a bit of research?

From my experience, I'd make an educated guess that's it's around 50/50. That's a high proportion of people who don't understand the benefit of doing some homework prior to an interview and therefore put themselves at a disadvantage in the recruitment process. If you fall in to this category, it's time to change!

Employers do of course want to know that the individual they're interviewing has looked through their website. It's the minimum expectation. Depending on the firm, their website may well provide nearly everything you need to know to get an impression of the firm from a potential employee's perspective. A detailed 'careers' section and a content rich 'news' feed are great sources of information. Many company websites don't provide such useful info however, and in these cases you'll need to look further afield. 

When asked at interview what you know about the firm, very few interviewers want to hear just stats and facts, e.g; "I know the business was established in 1845 by Sir Joe Bloggs, and now has 42 offices in 25 countries across the EMEA region, with 2500 staff serving over 600 clients". They want to see an understanding of what the business actually does, their culture, how they engage with their customers and what they're trying to achieve. It's also reasonable to expect that if they've been in the press lately (trade press or mainstream) the interviewee may well be aware of it.

The key point here though, is that you might not actually be asked "what do you know about the business?". If all you've done to prepare is memorise the number of offices and staff they have, you're going to struggle to drop it in to conversation naturally and are therefore unlikely to leave the impression that this is a business you know much about and are genuinely interested to join. 

Fortunately, other sources of information are easy to come by. A simple search of the employer name on Google, filtered to 'news' results may bring up some invaluable topical information about the business. Wikipedia might provide some useful data too. One of the best sources however is online trade publications e.g. in the UK, for a Law Firm visit: www.thelawyer.com, or for a Retail business: www.retail-week.com. All industries will have something similar (and if they don't - there's a good business venture!). 

Finding topical news articles can create great opportunities to show your interest and understanding of the business, by asking questions such as: "I read that you're opening an office in Paris this month. Would this role have any involvement with the overseas offices?". This can set you apart from other interviewees and is very helpful to have in mind when you're asked in the interview if you have any questions.

If you're interviewing via a recruitment business, the other key source of information is your recruitment consultant. A good recruiter will be a goldmine of information, and will expect (rather than wait) to be involved in your preparations for interview by sharing their knowledge of the firm. 

Salary Surveys: pay close attention!

It’s the time of year again when HR departments are busily analysing market salary data and employees are discovering whether they will be happy or frustrated when learning of their annual pay reviews.

For employers it’s crucial that they have an informed understanding of what constitutes ‘market rate’ salaries for all the various positions they employ within their business. Equally it’s just as important that individuals know their market value relevant to their responsibilities, qualifications and experience.

That’s not to say that salary surveys provide an individual with proof that they are ‘worth’ a certain salary. But they do give guidance on what a future employer might expect them to be earning, which can be of huge importance. Rightly or wrongly (in my view: wrongly!), a fair proportion of prospective employers will consider an individual’s current salary when considering what they feel is a fair offer to attract someone. If they’re already well below market rate, they might be happy to take any payrise even though it is still below the market average.

Therefore, if you find yourself being paid a salary lower than your peers, you may well find that this sticks with you for the duration of your career (unless you do something to address it), which can amount to a considerable sum – more than you might be consciously willing to forego in favour of good team morale, convenient location and stability.

Of course, I wouldn’t advocate marching in to your line manager and demanding a pay rise but, if you haven’t already, it may be sensible to raise this as a topic for conversation during appraisals/reviews at an appropriate time. If you come to the realisation (or are informed) that your current employer knowingly pays at the lower end of the market, you should really consider the potential long term difference in earnings rather than just the next 12 months and based on this decide whether it’s an amount you’re happy to sacrifice or whether you might want to start looking to increase your salary elsewhere.

I’m currently conducting a salary survey in association with the Institute of Legal Finance & Management (http://www.ilfm.org.uk/) for the niche area I recruit for – accounting staff working for law firms. If you’re working within this area, please click the link and participate!

Are you missing out on talent as a result of the recession?

The recession has affected recruitment in many different ways. It has also had a huge impact on the career decisions made by individuals over the last few years, and if you don’t take this in to consideration when reviewing job applications, you could be missing out on genuine talent.

We’ve noted a few occasions recently where high calibre applicants have been overlooked for reasons that say more about market conditions lately than the individuals themselves, and this is where opportunities are missed.

With widespread redundancies, recruitment freezes and budget constraints on hiring over the last few years, it has been a very difficult period for many who’ve been directly affected by cut backs.  Even for those who’ve remained safe in their employment, it’s not been a particularly opportune time to make significant career advancements.

Those unfortunate enough to be made redundant during this period have generally not had the luxury to patiently pick and choose their next move, as they have been up against a lot of competition for very few vacancies. Meanwhile bills still have to be paid. The result is that some career decisions and moves have been made which in a better economic climate might not have happened.

There has also been notable trend over this period for employers to hire staff on fixed term contracts rather than making permanent appointments. Those already on long term temporary or rolling contract agreements have had little chance of becoming permanent, and many have been let go as a first measure of cutbacks. Maintaining career stability has simply not been possible for those in this circumstance.

We’re therefore now reaching a point where these factors need to be taken in to serious consideration when reviewing job applications. Some factors which may have raised concerns back in 2007 may now be more understandable today. Moves that might not have made sense pre-recession, should now be viewed in a different light, and individuals who may appear to have a patchy or “jumpy” CV over the last few years, aren’t necessarily unreliable or flighty – they may have just had to secure interim positions quickly due to financial commitments and a shortage of permanent opportunities available.

Are these factors taken in to consideration when you’re reviewing job applications? Or have you been affected personally by the recession and feel your career prospects have taken a knock as a result? Please add any relevant comments below.

Career progression or just more money?

When discussing a jobseekers motivations for looking for a move, two of the most common reasons I hear are career progression and for a payrise. The two are closely linked, with the first generally taking care of the latter, but too often they are confused as one and the same thing.

In many circumstances it seems that a jobseekers idea of career progression correlates to earnings and earnings alone. Understandable that this is seen as a positive move, but if you’re really looking for career progression, the salary of your next position shouldn’t really come in to the equation. Naturally, very few of us are prepared to take a drop in salary, but when considering your career earning potential, the salary you earn over the next 12 months will have little to no bearing on what you might be earning in a few years time. It’s the work itself that will make the difference.

If you want to significantly increase your earning potential, be patient and don’t focus on what your monthly income will be over the coming year. Think about what your earnings will be over the next 5-10 years. A position paying £3k more than another has the short term appeal of the higher salary, but as a stepping stone will the position itself help you climb to the next step up in your career faster than the other? Of course it could, and if so – result! If not however, the role with the lower salary but better development could be the sensible option.

Consider a Sliding Doors situation. On one universe you take the role paying £3k more and 5 years down the line you’re doing the same job as you are now and are again looking for a step up in your career. Meanwhile in the parallel universe the other you, who took the lower paying role, has already gained 5 years experience in a more senior position, developing their skills and experience accordingly. Chances are they’ll have already overtaken your earnings and now they also start looking for a new job, but in this scenario they’re looking for a job two steps higher up the ladder than you are. If they stay on their toes they’ll remain the higher earner right through till retirement and their overall career earnings will dwarf yours.   

Of course, it’s not always as clear cut as in this example, and it’s not every day we find ourselves with two job offers on the table. However, the same logic should be applied if after resigning your current employer tries to persuade you to stay by matching the salary on offer elsewhere. A short-term win perhaps, but how will staying affect the long-term path of your career?

Please don't tolerate cowboy recruiters!

The recruitment industry is currently trying to raise its game internally through introducing qualifications to ensure higher standards of ethics, service and compliance. Positive steps, however I believe there is a lot that can be achieved externally with employers and jobseekers asking more from the recruitment consultants they are dealing with, and not accepting unethical behaviour.

Take for example a situation I’ve experienced this week:

Having been briefed on an opportunity by a client, I approached a candidate to discuss the position and subsequently gained her permission to submit an application. In the period between this conversation and submitting the CV, Consultant X, who had also been briefed on the role, sent her CV through without approaching her.

The client quickly responded to Consultant X with an interview request. On learning that the candidate had already discussed the role with another recruiter, Consultant X used the carrot of an already secured interview request to persuade the candidate to go along with his application.

On receiving the CV submission via Balance, the client advised they’d already received the CV and that they operate a ‘first past the post’ system widely adopted by employers and accepted by recruiters, but with the expectation that the consultant will have first discussed the vacancy with the jobseeker.

On this occasion, Consultant X had not qualified if the candidate would even be interested in the role. Nor could he have known if the candidate had already made an application. Then there is the more alarming issue of confidentiality. Would Consultant X want his CV freely sent around the recruitment market if he was looking for a new job? I very much doubt it.

In this scenario the client did exactly the right thing on subsequently learning of the timeline of events, and contacted Consultant X to reiterate their minimum expectations from recruitment suppliers. Consultant X had little option other than to stand aside and allow the representation to go via Balance.

To me this is not a victory however. The correct CV submission was ultimately accepted, but only after the employer, jobseeker and I had to waste time undoing the tangle of another recruiter’s poor standards. He ended up with egg on his face, but at the same time left us all with a fresh example of the recruitment industry housing cowboys who don’t follow the most basic of industry standards.

This situation will only ever cease to exist if both employers and jobseekers refuse to continue to work with recruiters who adopt these practises. Employers can enforce better standards from their suppliers by spelling out these minimum expectations prior to agreeing to work with them, and investigating any subsequent duplicate applications if they occur. It’s not always the fault of recruiters, as unfortunately some jobseekers will mistakenly believe that hedging their bets and knowingly instructing two recruiters to submit applications will increase their chances of interview, however if you do have a recruitment supplier sending you CVs without first speaking to candidates, please do yourselves, job seekers and the recruitment industry a favour by taking your business elsewhere.

A linkedin scare story not to be scared by....

Having only posted about linkedin yesterday, encouraging all to use the site, I thought I'd share my thoughts on an article I've just read which may cause some scare-stories regardless of the outcome of this tribunal.

(to read the article, please click on the title of this blog post)

It all seems extremely bizarre to me and if his claims are proven to be true I can only see this ending with the individual walking away with a hefty pay out!

The most important thing to note is that this is a first in the UK, and it wouldn't surprise me if it also turns out to be the last.

When I signed up to Linkedin the default settings stated that I am interested in being approached about 'career opportunities' (as well as various other reasons for which I'd be open to be contacted) and I've never seen any reason to change them. I'm sure the same applies to the vast majority of users on the site also.

I'm not in the least bit interested in new opportunities, but I've left the default settings as they are because, to be frank, I don't think anyone pays a blind bit of notice to them. Unticking the box certainly won't stop a headhunter from making a call.

The individual in this circumstance could just as easily have posted his actual CV on to a job board if he was genuinely looking for a move, and he'd have had every right to do so without having to fear for his job security...