Job search communication

A few years ago I drove all day to an interview and stayed overnight at a hotel at my own expense. Everything went well and I later received a call from one of the hiring editors confirming that. He said it could still be a couple weeks before I heard one way or another as they were still interviewing. Seemed reasonable. About a month went by and I hadn't heard anything, so I sent a follow-up email. I was told I was still being considered. Three weeks later — now a total of seven weeks after interviewing — I got a call with an offer and was told I have just 24 hours to make a decision. I insisted that wasn't happening and after 72 hours declined the offer. It was a decent job, but left me with a questionable opinion of the place.

 

Thanks, that's what I thought. I found it strange this issue was being portrayed here as solely a problem in journalism.

 

I applied for a lot of different jobs in the past three years when I was looking for any paycheck. The only time I received any form of communication, even a auto-response email, was if I was asked to interview.

I applied for a communications job with the state HS activities association. The exec. director is a guy I've worked with for nearly a decade, going back to when he was a HS athletic director. We don't know each other well, just a good professional association as reporter/source. No drama, no blow outs over scandal, etc., nothing. No interview and no reply at all when I tried to follow up on the application.

I later spoke with him for a story on a proposed rule change. Thought about asking him what happened, but decided, "Fuck it. Didn't bother treating me like a professional, so I probably don't want to work for him anyway."

Spend hours working on application materials, and consider yourself lucky if you get a auto-response email.

 

I'm in a field (TV anchoring) that, for any opening that pays six figures, you have between 400-500 applicants plus their agents calling or emailing.

Nearly all of the companies have a website or link to apply, largely to ask how much money you want to try and weed out the field.

I almost always seek out the newsroom boss who is the decision maker and email them (we send YouTube links in 2015, far better than printing labels and mailing $10 tapes with $5 in postage ten years ago). Maybe 1 in 10 will email me back with a "got your info and we will make a decision in a few weeks." I genuinely appreciate that even I don't hear more.

I understand why the communication is lacking, given the number of applicants. What I don't appreciate is when their job descriptions are vague and full of generic language or their don't say what newscast they are filling a position (morning, evening, weekend).

I do place a high value on how a station treats me during an interview, too. Had one station make me wait in the lobby for 25 minutes last year before they got to me. If I was an entry level I could understand that but this was for their main anchor position, the managing editor of their newsroom. Major turnoff and they never really recovered for the ensuing 10 hours I was on site. Instead of more time with the boss, he avoided hard questions I had and passed me off to be given the third-degree from some newbie producers two years out of college.

Ten years ago, I was caught in a merger when I was still in sports. Before I jumped to news, I applied for some sports reporting positions in print and, while explaining my unusual career path, I found most of them extremely understanding, accessible but apologetic they couldn't pay more.

 

Amazing how lost moral obligations have become in the business world. As little as they might seem, it's probably why so many give up in this field.

 

It's not just this field.

At most places if you apply via their website for a position (which may be the only way), you probably will get an email saying your resume was submitted and they may contact you.

If you aren't picked for an interview, you probably won't ever hear back from the company. I applied for communication type jobs across a variety of companies and this was standard.

Not only is it hard to get feedback, it's very difficult to find out who the actual hiring manager is if you want to reach out directly. Bigger places use HR bots to scrub the resumes and if you don't have the right set of skills or buzzwords you are toast.

At least in newspapers, it's pretty easy to find out who the editor or sports editor is if you are applying for a job there.

It is ALWAYS better to get your name in front of the person doing the hiring in some way other than hoping you make in through the HR screening. Find someone who can put in a call for you to the person doing the hiring, etc.

I think most managers would want to feel like they "picked" the person rather than HR found them. So the end around is the move you want to make.

 

Tweener,

This is pretty typical, in my experience.

The hiring editor may think (hope) to get the green light in two weeks to pull the trigger, but then HR or the boss or corporate wants to wait. It almost always takes longer and is out of the control of the hiring editor.

Then when an offer is made, they want to move quickly. Maybe they have a small window when they can bring someone in before corporate puts a freeze on or whatever.

If I was making the offer, I would ask the person to think about it and let me know after talking it over with whomever. I wouldn't demand 24 hours, but that's pretty standard.

I've had people who wanted to accept on the phone but I told them to consider it and get back with me the next day.

I don't think the hiring process is a very good indicator of the workplace as a whole.

 

If you don't get an interview, you shouldn't get more than some generic reply from the application system or HR. Managers have plenty of work to do, and also don't want to work more than they have to.

Also, I doubt many people want to know the real reason they weren't hired. Everyone thinks they're the best candidate, but getting a job isn't the same as receiving a participant ribbon for field day.

 

I respect your opinion, Ace. Indeed, it may have been pretty standard. But the entire thing just rubbed me the wrong way, and it was more than the 24 hours they offered me to make a decision. In some cases, that's more than enough time. However, I told them throughout the process that I was interviewing elsewhere and I just so happened to have another offer on the table at the time theirs came in -- and another on the way, which I ultimately took. So, after seven weeks of relative silence, they call out of the blue and expect me to make a life decision in such a short amount of time? And when I asked for more time I was given the "is this the kind of indecision we can expect on the job?" routine.

It didn't help that one of the other places where I had interviewed flew me out, took me for meals and provided me with a pretty decent place to stay. The place that offered me 24 hours never offered to help with travel or hotel and interviewed me in a vacant part of the office to avoid running into the current beat writer, who was still on staff. So while it may have been relatively standard, I do believe I gleaned enough information during the hiring process that were valid indicators of the workplace.

 

Oh. Did not realize you had other irons in the fire.

I understand your reaction.

If I were the hiring manager and you said you had another offer, I would have tried to get a timetable from you and given you time to make an informed decision.

I would not want someone who wishes he had taken another job or wants to bolt in a month.

So I would give you at least a week or two of time to make an informed decision. But I wouldn't want someone putting me off a month hoping to snag an interview at the prestigious Podunk Daily.

 

I've interviewed for two jobs in the last year and only found out that I didn't the position when it was announced elsewhere that someone else had. Then earlier this summer, I was the one that got the job and had to read complaints from other applicants that found out they didn't get the job when it was announced that I did. That didn't feel good either. Just made me more determined not to be that kind of manager.

 

It's never, ever been just this field. I've said that before in other threads and I've said that three times on this thread. It's difficult for me to comprehend why many don't seem to understand that.

Calling it a moral obligation is interesting, as morals in society at large have changed drastically through the years.