Troubleshooting jobseeker s referees early in the process
Got a signed contract for the next gig on a good day rate - pressures off so brief pause to reflect and share and process the learning.
I m out and about so I will post this one in chunks.
Had second interview with large food manufacturing co. The job was a title I have never seen before called enterprise business analyst. It seemed to have elements of project manager BA and product manager and relationship/account manager. They spent the whole interview focusing on my ability to make this grumpy finance team happy. As you would expect from a TPM student I could give them plenty.
Then I get call from pimp. "Before the THIRD interview they want to talk to two referees. They re worried you're too friendly and won't be firm with the business. To be continued...
Analysis - I think this was a tale of two IT bosses. Obviously anytime such a focus on relationship management IT has been taking fire. Big Boss wanted a headkicking hard charger type. Small boss wanted everyone to just get along and be happy. This is what I wrote back (partly for benefit of recruiter as they are a speciality agency in an area I want to work in more). They went radio silent so obviously no dice from them. Which is fine by me because by this stage they'd exceeded my 3 strike policy.
Objectives of the email were to:
-
- show myself as being reasonable to the recruiter and working to try and keep the deal alive (as she'd already been looking for them for 2 months}
- not bother my referees with idiot tyre kickers
- keep the opportunity alive
I think I made 2 main mistakes with this email so I'd be interested in everyone's thoughts on how this could have been made more effective.
Interesting case study, Kevin.
I think the email was overall good, so it's possible that no matter how you structure it, it was going to stop no matter what.
Quote from Transitioned on November 19, 2022, 2:31 amTo move forward my suggestion is that we make a small change to Don's idea. I talk to this topic at the next interview round and give specific examples which can be validated with my referees subsequently. Same result just a different sequence.
Reading this, it feels like your idea was a bit too nebulous at this point and like a power move to get into your next step.
To say "yes" they'd take a risk with you and, if it indeed was a trick, they'd be the sucker of the situation.
It might just feel safer to say no or to ignore for them.
I understand not wanting to bother people with tire kickers, that's a smart approach indeed.
A Machiavellian workaround could be to make a deal with someone you have a good relationship with and be each other references.
Thanks Lucio I thought I might have massively overplayed this one so an expert second opinion is valuable.
Yes I thought it was worth posting. Everyone looks for a job at some point some interesting little games played. I thought maybe these might make tiny examples in business university
Probably was DOA at this point.
Focus for me was I was treating this as a negotiation and highlighting my ability to negotiate. If it's their way or the highway with two bosses who don't agree on direction I m out. And my other offer pays more. They are the ones adding extra hoops. 3 interviews is already a drawn out process.
From a candidate's perspective every interview adds more judges, increases investment and lessens chance of payoff. I had one that made me do 2 interviews once and 2 rounds of psych tests. After all that they wanted background checks. And this was for a role that needed deep specialist skills. I d had enough and took another offer for more money.
In terms of email structure I thought shorter is better. And I should have added a WIIFM framed it in terms of saving their time. Transparent I know but I thought it was like social niceties helps the overall relationship.
So I m thinking go with this shorter version but as you said add a bit more detail to make my suggestion easier to understand. Less fresh fish for a dead cat and more WIIFM flavour.
"My suggestion is that we make a small change to Don's idea. I talk to this topic at the next interview round and give specific examples which can be validated with my referees after we have had our next chat. E.g. look at a time where I had to standardise process and the business teams were not onboard. This could help Don and Ray to drill down on details they re interested in, have a more focused conversation with my referees and save their time at this busy time of year."
Quote from Transitioned on November 21, 2022, 9:07 pmFrom a candidate's perspective every interview adds more judges, increases investment and lessens chance of payoff. I had one that made me do 2 interviews once and 2 rounds of psych tests. After all that they wanted background checks. And this was for a role that needed deep specialist skills. I d had enough and took another offer for more money.
Yeah, it could be a good rule of thumb actually:
The more hurdles they add, the more little red flags.
In dating, it would be akin to the woman who keeps adding to make him prove to her: come pick me up, text me first, ask my parents first, pick a nice restaurant, open the door for me, wait for 3 dates, etc. etc.
Your second email sounds better, yes.
I'd still add some bridges to make it smoother though though, for example:
I understand Don's approach to want to check references (/do case studies or whatever) and I'm totally cool with that.
The only thing is... (<----- raise the problem)
So, if you're cool with that (<----- power protects), I propose... (<----- leads)
The first part aligns, the second part re-directs towards your solution.
Awesome - thanks Lucio that is smoother.
Outcome is they have me lined up for a third interview on Monday which they're calling a second. They blinked on troubling my referees. A week has gone by so you can guarantee they've looked at plenty of other candidates. So I must have been the best of a bad bunch (or somebody more senior is looking over their shoulder).