RSS feed
Content Strategy Bitesize
TwitterShould you apply if you don’t fit the job spec?
Let me begin to answer this with a classic video of Maru the cat trying every which way to fit into a small box. Because sometimes, no matter how hard you try, or how much you want it to be true, there is no way that you are going to fit into that box! The trick is to recognise this upfront – before you waste a whole lot of time (and someone videos you for their YouTube channel).
In my career as a recruiter, I’ve reviewed thousands of CVs and conducted hundreds of interviews for the recruitment agencies I’ve worked for (so happy to own my own now!). I’ve seen the good, the bad, the downright strange (read: entertaining). But the thing that I enjoy most about my work in the relatively niche world of European content and comms recruitment is getting to know candidates and finding the perfect match both for them and my hiring clients.
Alas, as in any field, there will be people who are never going to fit the bill and it is a waste of their time, and mine, for them to apply for the job. So, in recruitment, who or what is the biggest time waster of all?
It is the applicant who tries to adjust the posted job description to fit their circumstances.
Of course, there are sometimes a lot of ‘nice to haves’ on the client’s dream list. This is not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the applicant who insists that I change some listed requirement to suit them.
You know the kind: the applicant who says they can do all of the job, but will need to work from home in Liverpool even though the job is in Paris, when the spec clearly states that the job is on site. Of course they’ll be there for most client meetings – as long as the client pays for travel expenses.
This is different from missing one or two ‘nice to haves’ and applying anyway. This is trying to tell the client you’re redesigning their job. If the spec says ‘No teleworking’, it should be translated thus: No teleworking. End of story.
A recent scenario…
Last month, for example, I advertised a job opening on Twitter. With only 140 characters to play with, this involved posting just the bare facts with an invite to continue the discussion from there.
The responses ranged from:
- A perfect match - except that I will need to explain to the hirer that they can’t work on site.
- The job can be done but in a different tool that the candidate knows better.
- The applicant has no background in that area but can learn the client’s technology area in two days – if they pay for training (my personal favourite).
Three little words: Waste Of Time.
Still think it’s worth a try?
It’s not! If you take nothing else away from this post, remember this: the bare minimum requirements are non-negotiable and a job spec stands for job specification not job-hunter speculation.
So save yourself a Tweet, or worse, an entire job application. Go and do something more exciting with your free time instead. Because if you don’t fit the basic criteria, there really is no point. And that niggling voice in your head that says there is, is wrong.
What else do you need to know?
Of course, I recognise that people don’t actually do this on purpose – they don’t set out to waste their time and mine by applying for jobs that aren’t suitable. They just don’t know the rules of engagement or where the recruitment lines are drawn.
So, in that respect, if you have any other questions about job applications, becoming a candidate, or the general recruitment process here at Firehead, or if this has raised other questions, please drop your question into the comments and we’ll do a Q&A in a future post.
Hmm. I would agree with you, except that more than once I’ve landed a job where I was missing one “must have,” but had all of the “nice to haves” and then some. I have found that certain “must haves” are sometimes a bit more flexible than others — eg having a PhD, or speaking the local language — and will be overlooked for the right candidate, once the employer gets desperate.
Also hmm.
I’m with you on working on site vs. remotely, because it usually has too much to do with corporate culture and DNA. A company should not and will not change the way it ticks because of one new hire. Especially not a content/communications person.
But for most other purposes, I think whether or not an applicant should try to tweak the job spec depends on who benefits and how you do it. Especially for a content/communications person.
I’ve seen lots of small and medium-sized enterprises whose job spec reflected how they documentation has always been done there – not how documentation can be done effectively and efficiently.
I’ve repeatedly signed on with companies where I sooner or later drove the change of documentation processes and tools, not because I like one tool better than another (though I do), but because we were wasting time using some ubiquitous office software that’s less than suitable for single-sourcing documentation.
Yes, I expect a cool company to know what they’re looking for in a content/comms person. But I also expect a cool company to recognize how to do their business better, even if it means changing processes, tools or job specs. It comes down to who benefits from the tweaks, and a win-win is what we’re looking for.
Hi Kai,
Thanks for your thoughts. While I agree that a real professional content/communications person might know better than the (probably not content/communications) interviewer what would make their systems work better, this is delicate ground to be talking about so soon in the process. Although you might be (and probably are, knowing you!) 100% right about what would make their communications work better, I have to fall back on there being a time and a place for everything. And answering a job spec by demanding that the specs be changed is not the place to do it. Simply because you won’t get the client and therefore won’t be able to implement any of the changes you’re dreaming of.
In the interview, once you’re working together to attack the problem, yes, maybe. Once again, it depends on how receptive the company is to your thoughts about change.
If there still is no interest in looking at things the way you see them, it’s probably the wrong company for you. The recruitment process is a two-way affair and this means that you might not like what they are offering every bit as much as they might not want to change “what they’ve always been doing” because someone from the outside “said so”.
If you get in there (get the job) and can show them the time and cost savings, great. That’s a win-win. But you have to admit you had to take a big risk in accepting the job at all to get there. Working to a different job spec than HR and the organisation originally defined is risky (although sometimes it works, if the buy-in process is done well at all levels). As a recruiter, I don’t recommend taking this approach from the outset because statistically, you’re much more likely to end up unhappy and with a failed agenda. That’s not good for anyone.
I think the principles of change management are a huge, and under-acknowledged, component of recruitment and job change in general. There’s lots of talk about it from an organisational level, but job applicants could apply the same risk- assessment factors quite successfully to their own job searches. You’re doing an assessment too.
I agree whole-heartedly about looking for win-win situations. And for a content/communications person who is looking to do meaningful work, including changing dud processes, tools and specs, my suggestion is to use those criteria to evaluate what the company is open to offering *from the beginning* (because this is their entrenched position – and the one that will have to be changed).
Possibly discussing in an interview is the best first place, if you have a business case to make your point. Maybe they will listen, maybe they won’t. But you will get nowhere fast by coming in from the outset telling them they have to consider your changed approach to their way of working before you will apply.
Hi David,
I agree! But coming in and telling them they have to change it for you won’t work. Hirers are usually looking for fit as an intangible part of everything else.