What's in a name?

Does a baby's name affect its chances in life? writes William Kremer in the the BBC online News magazine.

It seems that CJS has always specialised in the less common names with our founders being Anthea (often addressed as Andrea and always corrected) and Niall (frequently referred to, even by himself, as Neil).

However, even the more frequently encountered names can be problematic, how many different ways are there to spell Amy?  Apparently multiple - ranging from Aimee to Ami and Tracey is frequently addressed without the 'e'.

I have an unusual name, my parents came up with Kerryn.  Both were teachers and every name one thought of the other had an associated naughty / bad pupil memory.  It was a family friend who actually suggested Kerryn, as an amalgamation of Keith and Carolyn.  It's been a blessing and a curse but it's me so I'm not changing; although I did disavow my middle name as soon as I could, and no I'm not telling anyone what it was!  I'm used to Karen, Kerry, Keiran and even on one occasion Kevin, I gently correct the error but don't worry about it, unlike my mum who gets all hot and bothered about people using the wrong name.

Blessing?  

Well it means I'm usually remembered if only because "you're the one with the odd name - what is it again?" .  Which also means that my name stands out on applications and paperwork and creates a feeling of familiarity because it's remembered boosting it to the top of the heap (with luck the yes heap!).  

It's human nature to associate words including names with memories. Having an unusual name means that you can genuinely create a first impression, a more regular one may already have a memory, an archetype or even a caricature linked to it. What do you think of when I say Vicky Pollard? or George Osborne (If like me you immediately thought of the Chancellor it's worth noting that he actually changed his name from Gideon, which would have been even more memorable and archetypical).

Today names are easy to find and histories checked, if you google me (I wouldn't recommend it, it's all really boring) you immediately find me, first page is all me (I just checked and it's quite scary being so easy to find) and some of it even leads back to CJS which is good for us. Whereas if you google Amy she doesn't appear in the first several pages of results.  Neither of us are particularly active on social media, if I was there may even be more results returned which is an even more worrying thought.  Which leads to....

Curse?

Well, because my name is so easily remembered (or at least recognised) and found.  If I'd posted anything embarrassing or incriminating it was there highly visible for all to see.  In the pre-IT era it was always my name that was remembered and then my cohorts got pulled in by association it's just that google makes it so much easier.

So why is this a CJS muse?

Mainly because of the ease of being remembered and found.  In our helpful hints we recommend cleaning up your online profile because the majority of employers, whether they admit it or not, will check your online status.  But until now we never thought about the ease of being found; that's not to say being Fred Bloggs gives you a license to post anything whilst Fiametta  Bassingthwaighte has to watch every word and image. Fiamatta could use it to her advantage by creating a unique positive online presence but Fred has to work that much harder to get his online content more easily found.

So do names help or hinder?

Probably both.

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.