2) What are the process steps for bringing a person on board?
3) In case there is a delay in this timeline, would it be appropriate for me to follow up and if ok, with whom?
Questions about the dog etc can come later when the offer is made: May I have a copy of the HR policies for this position?
Especially in Sales where travel is required, the HR policies - which define many expense entitlements like Business Class travel for longer distances - can become a deal breaker.
Good luck with your job searches!
And to that all important follow up question, "Is it negotiable?" My answer is "Yes. But you will need to talk to my official negotiator on this."
And any recruiter who shies from revealing the compensation, you should avoid completely.
I've gone on a series of interviews with a company who was willing to pay a lot less than I was willing to accept. I kept my mouth shut. I met with HR, hiring managers, peer-level employees and a couple of executives. I kept my mouth shut. They drafted an offer that was less than I was making. I thanked them for the offer and let them know that I was sorry, but I had to decline.
Now the hiring manager was being looked at by a couple of executives, a couple of peers and HR.
I got the offer I wanted... because I *DID NOT* insist on the details of the compensation package prior to the first.. or second... or third interview.
My bottom line advice, technical people and engineers need to spend some time learning some basic people and sales skills, after all in an interview you are selling yourself and the interviewer is selling you the company.
You have to find out if the company is a good employer; a lesson I learned for not asking "How long did the person in this position work for the company" and/or "How many people have held this position in the past 10 years"
I found out the hard way in the past 10 years 5 people have held this position. That meant that the average person only lasted 2 years before they were replaced. All due to the director and manager made their life horrible.
If I would have asked that question in the beginning I would have found out before hand there was an issue with management and/or leadership for there to be such a high turnover in one position. Point is, don't feel like your in a desperate position that you will accept anything, interview the leadership because you are going to spending allot of time with them in the future.
The interview is as much about what you can do for the company as it is about what they will do for you.
Obviously there is a tactful way to gain the same information besides blundering your way through rapid-fire self-absorbent questions and I think that's what the author was really getting at.
you are not attending a lecture, it is two way conversation where you must determine if the company fits you, just as much as they want to know if you fit the company
My question is this: I don't really want to work for them, but given the circumstances I wouldn't be able to turn down an interview. I am horrified at the prospect of coming out of retirement, but would like to leave my options open.
I'm pretty sure with my age alone, they wouldn't consider hiring me, but just in case -- please give me some really subtle questions that aren't really obvious (like the excellent ones in the blog entry) that I can use to have them drop me like a hot rock.
Many spring to mind like: Will I be able to discuss my work outside (company name here)? Is a past bankruptcy a problem? Do you actually hire people from (my last place of work)? (My past employer) doesn't allow anyone working for them currently to give references: Can I use people they've fired for my references? (My last job) was so stressful because management lied to me that my psychiatrist gave me 7 weeks off to recover from them (true story) -- would that be a problem here?
I would appreciate any other suggestions, since you folks here are really smart and creative.
I know, I know -- I shouldn't borrow trouble and it's probably a non issue since they may not give me an interview, but I like to be prepared just in case.
As for bringing your children to work...
I remember the 4 year old programmer's son with ADHD chasing around the computer room like a wild man and just for fun, pulled the fire alarm and dumped $6,000 worth of Halon.
When operator grandma brought her children into the computer room, they were left unwatched and went around randomly typing on the keyboards to servers. I had to drive in and bring the HP3000 back up. Twice. In two different years. Management cast a blind eye. Which would lead me to ask the question during the interview: Do you allow children into the Data Center?
If you ask me, all children who are allowed to come to work should go through a security screening first, just like the employees -- and a drug test too.
Times have changed.
Of course, you can ask, but....
Ms. Hall says, Bottom line: An interview should be about what you can give to a company, not what you can get from a company. Save those questions for the offer stage, after your prospective employer has determined youre the right person for the role. Selfish is not on the shortlist of any desired skills list Ive ever seen!
I will not work for a company who see me as a commodity (again)
Ms. Hall and Ms. Bowers should be ashamed of reinforcing the notion that our innate desire for self-preservation and happiness should be a demerit condition for unemployment. Once the Tech Sector gets hot again, talk like this will be laughable and 'The Talent' will be treated as such, so until then; a heads-up is good, but a rap across the knuckles is oppressive.
As for the second set of questions, question seven has to be answered; with questions four and five answered if appropriate to the position.
Interviewers giving only partial information do the company a big disservice.
Myself I'm more of the 'upfront' type. I'm going to ask the questions I feel I need to know and want to work for a company that feels the same way. Others are definitely the 'whatever it takes to get in the door' type. Holding back questions that until you feel you've 'got them where you want them' and where they've made an investment in time and effort towards wanting to hire you -- to me that sounds like your trying to take advantage of them. I don't want to work where I'm worried about them taking advantage of me, or I'm constantly trying to take advantage of them (either in my eyes or theirs). I want to work someplace where both sides are looking to mutually benefit each other, not who can get the best of the deal, but each to their own. There are people who are out there only looking out for themselves, but each to their own.
As for me, I'll be upfront and trying to be an asset anyplace I go -- as long as they do right by me they'll have the benefit of a good employee. If they don't, well I've never had a hard time finding a company that does want one...
"Ms. Hall says, Bottom line: An interview should be about what you can give to a company, not what you can get from a company.""
Sound byte garbage. A prospective employee is entitled to ask questions about what they stand to gain professionally and personally from any employment arrangement. They want to know how their current skills will be used and valued and what opportunities there are for learning new skills and growing their career. Again, employment is a mutual arrangement. We shouldn't forget that recruiters are paid by employers, so it's not surprising they tend to over-represent the employer's agenda and minimize the candidate's. Wouldn't it be refreshing if employers and candidates approached one another from positions of mutual respect? I've seen both ends of the spectrum. People in general are just so stupid a lot of the time.
Dress like a slob.
Ask for a drink.
Display your aborigine tats and piercings.
Should be completely unnecessary. Why is it necessary? Is this behavior part of the MEllenial culture?
Don't think it doesn't happen: You can count on Generation Whine for all sorts of things we'd never think to do.
The articles here at techrepublic point only in one direction: techrepublic endorses corporate fascism. But hey, who's surprised? Not me.
Reason being if the previous employee left because of the working conditions (excessive hours, relationships with boss's and/or other employers), the interviewer is likely to evade the truth.
Companies have gotten lazy in the hiring process.
As the job applicant, I sure don't want my time wasted on two or three interviews, only to discover that the offered pay rate is 2/3 of what I was expecting.
"Do you always prosecute in cases of staff pilfering?"
- Keyboard Shortcuts: