A how not to guide for recruiters and candidates.

This week the Huffington Post has picked up on a tweet from an applicant who has lambasted her potential employer for the rejection email she received, read their report here.

Unfortunately this is all too common although rarely played out on the internet for all to see.

Regularly we receive enquiries such as this from potential applicants which on first look would appear to be the right thing to do, all the advice on how to get a job says do your research.  However, from CJS’s point of view we only have the information in the advert, in other words the same as you and thus we must direct enquirers back to the advert and ultimately to the employer.
Of course it is right that applicants seek further information especially if the advert says apply by CV, you need more information to tailor your CV and covering letter to the post ensuring that you highlight the correct skills and experience for this exact post thereby giving yourself the best possible chance.  Background research and a demonstrable familiarity with the employing organisation is always an advantage when it comes to filling in application forms or at interview when answering questions and often a targeted question from an interested applicant at interview can be the one thing that tips the balance.
However, what is not so appropriate is taking the short cut and immediately emailing or phoning the employer, they may be a large organisation with an HR department which is able to spare the time and resources to answer all your queries but, especially in the countryside sector, just as likely they may be a smaller group unable to do so and your query could be diverting them from their 'real' work, exactly that for which they need the additional help.  In the case quoted in the article a full job description was available online and apparently found within a few minutes searching.  Yes, we appreciate that you may be applying for tens, if not hundreds, of jobs each week but likewise the employer may be dealing with hundreds, if not thousands, of candidates, do you really want you first impression to be a ‘lazy’ one?  Do your own research and then if absolutely necessary approach the employer; but remember many more general questions can be answered at the interview stage should you be fortunate enough to get that far.

We’re not exonerating the employer here either.  We all have a bad day but the tone of the email was not exactly the most professional.  Additionally, the information was available on their website, so why was the link not included in the advert?  Some advertisers place smaller adverts and want the candidates to find the information themselves deliberately including only the basics, however if advertisers are going to use this tactic they should have a standard, polite, response ready to reply to enquiries.  Keep the details and exclude the candidate from the shortlisting if that’s part of your criteria but do be prepared for multiple candidates asking for more information.

For this candidate it’s even more unfortunate that this ‘went viral’ her name will forever be associated with this failed application, a quick search for her and the Huffington Post report  is the fourth item on google.  Which brings up another consideration.  Before you post something think about the ramifications. Many, if not most, employers and agencies check your details online and something like this (or worse) is not what you want to be popping up on the first page of the results, and remember it might not just be your profile, have your friends got embarrassing pictures from last New Year?  Get those taken down too!

In conclusion neither party comes out of this smelling of roses but it does raise interesting points about the problems faced by both employers and candidates.

Holding back the flood.

Flooding in England, monstrous snow storms in America, overbearing baking heat in Australia and that's just in the last few months. I don't think anyone can deny (although some may try) that our climate is changing. The climate has always been fluctuating, never static, history recounts frost-fairs held on the Thames 200 years ago when the ice was thick enough to support printing presses, elephants and didn't melt under day long bonfires but then was warm enough for thin muslin empire line dresses in Jane Austen's time (think back to Pride and Prejudice) and don't forget the Romans had vineyards across the country as did many abbeys in the middle ages. You don't need the backing of mountains of data to accept these as truths or to understand that our climate is fickle, subject to many influences some of which we understand, some we've just discovered and others which are, as yet, totally beyond our ken. Climate change is constant but I question what proportion of that change is down to man's activities. As climatology is a relatively new science with only a very small dataset, in comparison with the scope of global climate in geological time, any predictions and forecasts no matter how complex the programme are only estimates based on what we know - which is relatively little. Thus, until time passes and can be proven with ever larger datasets, any conclusions reached must be understood to hold a large degree of error, however, this is not always the case, many are taken as absolute fact as if set in stone only to be disproved not many years later. In the sixties we were heading to a new ice age, in the late eighties it was a dust bowl and gardeners were told to plant gravel gardens and desert plants, now Waterworld? Man has certainly added to and changed the gaseous environment but to what extent? Enough to cause the cataclysmic events of the past year? I don't believe so. Neither do I believe that man’s impact since he first set foot on the planet has had a major role in shaping the climate, environment - yes, individual ecosystems - definitely, local microclimate - possibly but not enough of a significant impact on global climate to have made sufficient difference to alter the course of our changing climate to a detectable degree.
What I do believe is that we've wasted decades trying to stop the inevitable by reducing carbon emissions, cutting methane, making energy efficiency measures compulsory to reduce emissions (energy efficiency is generally a good idea but we're approaching it from the wrong standpoint - and that's a whole different blog or should that be rant?) when what we should be doing is to prepare. Getting ready for longer, colder winters and longer, more severe wetter times (whenever) and drier periods too, instead of investing in emission reduction we should be using technology to ensure that our homes, work places and lives in general are fit to withstand more snow, more or less water, greater extremes in temperature. Working with the land instead of against it making use of centuries old techniques that have been proven to work with our predominantly man-made landscapes; with people helping them to understand why they should use the best methodologies possible instead of enforcing them through pointless decree; with business to encourage sensible long term solutions of redevelopment, of not building on flood plains, looking at use of permeable hard standing; with innovators to consider ways to deal with wide ranging temperature, water storage and flood prevention, not to mention ensuring longer term food sustainability.
So stop being Canute and be more of a Da Vinci, Newton, Einstein or even a Dyson!