Jason Monastra

My life and thoughts out on the web

The way one accepts an offer is just as important as the offer itself.  There are several parts of the offer process.  The offer negotiation, candid communications on desire and intent, and then the decision based on the offer that is put forward.  When the final offer is made, the communication up to that point should be indicative of the decision that will come forth.  There should be no surprises of the decision.  If the needs of the candidate are being communicated and are therefore met, the offer acceptance should be the next natural step.

Well, what happens when the offer is made as requested and the offer is not accepted.  What has happened?  Has the company done something wrong?  More often than not, the candidate has not been up front with their desires and therefore the company is making an offer based on information that is not correct.  The company is working off assumptions that were prepared for them, but they are not the core reasoning in the decision making process.  To present an offer in such circumstances is a waste of everyone’s time with a sure ending of disappointment and frustration.

Candidates need to offer candid reasoning for what they are looking for.  When speaking to a recruiter or hiring manager, the candidate needs to lay out their desires for compensation, benefits, and job responsibilities.  If those are met, the role should be accepted.  To place a company in such position of exercise and then to not accept is unprofessional. 

Recently in our firm we have dealt with such a position.  The company was placed in a position where needs and expectations were expressed by the candidate, only to be turned down at the time of offer.  Confusing.  Well for the people involved, it was.  The candidate verbally accepts the position only to turn down the position via email.  A bridge that would have been open if the offer had been treated in the same manner in which it was constructed, but now burned.

If you are to accept an offer….accept it once and keep the decision you made.   Weigh all of your options before making the decision so that when you communicate the answer, there is no turning back.  This will keep the confusion and frustration from the offer process.

“As Lady Macbeth so eloquently put it…”
Scripted answers, although accurate, don’t impress interviewers. Not only do they make you sound rehearsed and stiff, they also prevent you from engaging in a dialogue.
“This is a conversation between a couple humans that are trying to get a good understanding of one another. Act accordingly,” Moran reminds.

This is one of the latest techniques of interview answers that was presented in this article about not getting a job.  Does anyone actually do this?  I have been in the business for more than 10 yrs providing people advice on the interview process and how to best ensure they get the next job.  Why would anyone actually copy what someone else said and then pinpoint who said it?

Well, as logic has probably set in, you know - NEVER do that.  However to incorporate the ideas of other people into your answers is not necessarily all bad.  If there are methods and answers that have worked for other people, customize them to fit the needs of your situation and present them.  This will assist you with using a base answer that applies and you have now made it your own.

I do like how the writer writes about creating rapport.  That this sort of communication does not offer the ability to make a break through with someone, as there is no way to identify with that person.  Rather the interviewer feels like you are not being yourself and therefore does not know who you actually are.  Be yourself, and learn from others, but do not copy them.  Make the answer your own and do not sound rehearsed or memorized.  Remember the presentation of the answer is just as important as the answer itself…..

One of the most basic things that we sometimes overlook is the location of our interview.  With growing cities and changing street names, the complexity of challenges has multiplied when considering how to and when to arrive on your interview.  Location. Location. Location.

The location of the interview should be known well in advance previous to the interview.  Research the street address and utilize the Internet to get directions.  There are numerous options that are available for directions, such as MapQuest and Google.  Place your home address into the system and see how to get there.  If you will be coming from your current job, place that address in the system and see how long it will take to get there.  Consider the traffic patterns during the time you will be traveling and allow for more congested times during lunch and more popular travel times.

Run a test drive.  If you have ample time, make the drive to the location so you know the area.   Even in a town you know well or have lived, there are roads and locations that you think you might know but do not.  Remember road construction as well, as this will delay your arrival or could mis-direct the normal directions.  Be careful and allow for plenty of time to arrive.  You will feel more comfortable and less stressed due to the additional time.  Being at the location and in the lobby 15 minutes previous is considered professional.

Never be scared to ask for directions……this is for everyone.  If you are lost, ask someone.  Better to be on-time and humble than lost and late.  There is nothing more unimpressive than being late….it tells more about who you are as a candidate than anything else and sets a first impression even before the hiring manager lays eyes on you and says hello.

Drive safe.

Dress has become a hot topic these days especially down here in the south so I wanted to recap on the basics of appropriate dress for the interview.  Business professional is the default.  You will never be seen as unprofessional for showing up in suit for the interview.  People respect professionalism and see your dress as a sign of respect for the company and the position you are interviewing for.

Summer time is a time for sun and fun….but not in the interview.  Unfortunately people tend to become looser and want to shed more clothing when the weather is hot.  In an interview, this can be disastrous.  All companies have different cultures, but the interview is not a place to adapt to what they wear.  If they wear business casual, show up in suit…period.  Do not allow the weather to dictate the attire, as the event dictates the attire.  No one goes to a formal wedding in flip flops just because it is hot outside.

Dress the part.  We are interviewing for professional level jobs with professional level pay.  Look the part.  Professionalism is more than just dress but dress is a component of the look.  It will show that you are well presented and it will leave nothing for the manager to think about.  If you show up in a polo and khakis, but the job requires presentations to the board - what are people to think?  They need to imagine what and how you might present yourself in that situation.  Leave nothing to chance and let them know up front they are dealing with someone that knows what the role requires.

As with anything there are exceptions and I want to address this.  If you have spoken to the manager or the recruiter and there is specific instructions not to dress business professional as that will cause turmoil, people will know there is an interview going on, or the environment just does not take well to suits….do not wear one.  Sometimes younger management are more liberal in their dress policy and want people that will fit well with the culture, be sure to know this previous to going in.  So short of causing a riot, go business professional.

At the worst it gives us an excuse to do a little more shopping…..

I have read continually over the past weeks about the reluctance of democrats to remove the ban on offshore drilling.  They tout the fact that even with offshore drilling, the benefits will not be seen for 3-5 yrs and it will not fix the cost of gas today.  How short sighted can one side be?  We are not talking about 3-5 yrs, we are talking the next 10-20 yrs where this country continues to be held hostage to the foreign oil countries and their desire to unseat us as a world power.  Offshore drilling as a pillar in the foundation to remove our sole dependence on foreign oil is certainly a strong pillar to employ.

President Bush today removed the ban from offshore drilling leaving the Congress to make the final decision to allow for offshore drilling plus additional drilling in Alaska and in the Pacific MidWest.  Congress, democratic controlled, and with the national spotlight on their leader (Obama) will be certain to employ all blockades to keep the ban in place causing a stranglehold on our domestic economy and continuing to drive the US into deeper recession and reliance.

Let’s be serious, offshore drilling will not be the only way to relieve the cost of gas or the reliance on foreign oil, but as part of a broader strategy, it will be useful in the shaving of oil prices globally.  With an additional oil source provided domestically, the global cost would decrease as the demand here was met without the need of foreign supply.  In the immediate short term, deploy specific amounts of the national reserve in an effort to bring the cost per barrel down and penalize speculators that have profited from this ridiculous run up.  Third, strategic investment and tax incentives for alternative fuel research and development, coupled with economic incentives and government contracts for successful business in this area.  Lastly, raise the federal funds rate to reduce the weakening dollar, alleviating the rallying cost of oil as the commodity is traded in US currency.

I am not sure about you, but that seems the base for a plan…..

What is this?  In the LA Times, Tim wrote about the emerging perspective of some our far left friends that Donald should be brought up war crimes due his decision to allow techniques that have bordered on torture.  Well before I go off on the tangent that is sure to make me no friends, I will start with - are you kidding?  Prosecute a world leader on allowing the gathering of intelligence information that is combating people that want to kill us.   HMMMMM…..does that sound strange to anyone else.  That must be one of the craziest things I have heard.  People in leadership make decisions all of the time, and they cannot be thinking of a war crimes tribunal every time they make a hard decision on meeting head on with group of free radicals that are set on destroying us.

Torture….hate to say it and no I am not a war veteran and I have no experience.  But did anyone realize that the “rule book” are liberal friends and the EU would have us play by is the not the rules the rest of the world plays with.  People need information, and yes sometimes that information is garnered in ways that are not what people want to read about on the front page, but that information is critical to establishing strategies that safeguard us against the enemy.  The enemy is elusive and well equipped, fluid in their attacks and has no morale boundaries.  When killing children, pregnant women, and innocent people do not make these people blink an eye - I cannot see how employing all methods to extract information is wrong.  Yes, a blanket approach to where the tactics are used as a first form of interrogation -  I can see the issues with that.  But in certain circumstances, I can also see the methods as being needed.  Now some will say, how do we regulate?  WE DON’T.  Wouldn’t it be nice to hold a consensus every-time we thought about interrogating someone.  We do not have that luxury.  Intelligence and counter-intelligence is gathered in real time without time for political interference.  We place the best people in charge to allow them to make the decisions as they see fit.  We trust and we vote…but we do not micro-manage and we certainly to do look at condemning our leaders for methods that might be considered harsh by world standards.

The world would love to see us go down in flames.  Our liberal friends seem to be on the same page as Hugo Chavez and our friends in Iran and N.Korea.  If we left the running of this country to them, we would be deflated in a matter of years to nothing more than a dumping ground for world issues, free citizenship with no accountability, and a socialist government that takes everything and distributes it equally.  Not sure if anyone has ever looked around…..but nothing is equal.  In the good ole liberal socialist movement, the leaders would be rich and the people would be poor….no middle class at all.

Off my soap box for a minute and no to charges for our leaders.  This is no Stalin or Hitler.  Get in line, vote your decision and if you want change - elect someone else.

I was reading the article most recently of the 12 yr old in Chicago that received a car for her perfect attendance during the school year.  This took place in Chicago, not a private school, but within the public school system.  She is not legally able to drive the vehicle (valued at more than 15,000 dollars) for another 4 yrs but that is of no matter.  Public administration cited the gift as a key component of combating truancy among young students and encouraging their attendance in school.

What a load of ……….  Can anyone else not believe this?  First and foremost, I am not against the rewarding of students that have perfect attendance.  I agree with incentives for children that follow the rules and showing the rewards that can come from bettering oneself.  But a car?  The child cannot even drive the car.   Was there not a more appropriate gift for a child that age?  I am certain that a 12 yr old was not asking for a car, as most children that age are more interested in things that directly effect their lives today - not years down the road.  Also, where did the 15,000 dollars come from?  I see countless complaints of aging educational products, lower teacher pay than needed, and countless other needs within the public schools….where do we get 15k to rattle off and buy someone a car?  My hope is that there was some donation that the school used as a buzz piece to increase the publicity of the event.  But seriously, if the school administration approved that and kids cannot get books - someone needs to be asking Arne Duncan a bunch of questions.

HA…..the politics of this country have taken the course of self serving and derived of nothing short of a non-existent moral compass that leads candidates to make decisions for their own personal benefit and that of their party.  I read with humor this public vs. private funding debate discussing the reasons why each candidate would go their way, and the agreement that was met between the candidates agreeing on public financing.  When public financing is not in the best interest of their self interest, what happens….they simply resign to their lower self serviceness and go back on their word.  Lies are easily washed over with “acceptable reasoning” and seen as a political tactic.  I believe I even heard Obama referenced as a quality opponent for this action.  How can this be?  When lies are part of a strategy to get elected and this is seen as positive?  What and where have we gone with this?

Now listen, I am not saying this is a democratic or republican perspective, but what I find the most interesting is the acceptance by the people of this sort of politics.  Moral guidance and strength of principles I feel is lost in this entire regime.  When seeking the leader of the free world, we are reliant on whom has the most money and offers the most elusive answers to the needed questions.  Does not that seem odd to anyone?  I am not a supporter of Obama for various reasons but this is something that stands out to me.  This little known entity a few years ago sprung to the leadership table and took a seat among the Clintons and other leading democrats touting change and leveraging a grass roots methodology.  Now that he is there, what has happened?  He changes to fit the requirements of the majority so he can get elected.  When will we get someone that means what they say, sticks with it, gets elected and carries through?  That will be the day and man that would be a great day.

Knowing information about the potential company you might be working for is elementary.  Basic web searches will uncover the details of most facts, and with a little due diligence a web surfer can uncover more than they will ever need to know to snag the role.  This was listed in a recent article past to me as being a prime reason candidates to not get jobs.

“I don’t know anything about the company.”Chances are the interviewer will ask what you know about the company. If you say you don’t know anything about it, the interviewer will wonder why you’re applying for the job and will probably conclude you’re after money, not a career.”With today’s technology,” Moran says, “there is no excuse for having no knowledge of a company except laziness and/or poor planning - neither of which are attributes [of potential employees] sought by many organizations.”

I find it funny that in today’s environment, especially for people in the technical fields that this would even raise its head as a concern.  In addition, and more troubling, is why would anyone go to interview with a company they knew nothing about?  What a waste of time.  Walking in their intellectually naked, bearing your personal soul to people that you know nothing about.  What if the company has a poor morale compass or is in the news most recently about exploiting children in developing countries.  Are not those things you would like to know?   Google, www.google.com, easy and simple to use will uncover what you need to know.  Hit the web with a few searches on the company, select the news option and see the most recent articles floating around.  Be sure that the company is worth giving your time to.

Company knowledge shows interest in the role.  Hiring managers realize you took the time to review the company, the role and match that against your career objectives.  They will realize you are prepared and if you structure questions around what you have learned, it is an impressive edge over the people walking in and knowing little to nothing.  Economies throughout the world and specific verticals are becoming more and more competitive, so be sure to develop your strategy to differentiate yourself. 

“I hated my last boss.”
Your last boss was a miserable person whose main concern was making your life miserable. Of course you don’t have a lot of nice things to say; however, don’t mistake honesty, which is admirable, for trash-talking, which is despicable.
“If you truly did hate your last boss, I would be prepared to articulate why your last organization and relationship was not right for you,” says Greg Moran, director of industry sales and partnerships for Talent Technology Corp. “Then be prepared to explain what type of organization is right for you and what type of management style you best respond to.”

This was sent to me via email last week describing an article someone had read reference former bosses.  I do not agree with the recommendation of allowing this type of response.  Explaining the sort of org that is right for you and where you fit into that is fine, but having that as a prepared response since you dislike your boss is not the answer.  While people want to be able to say what they want, there is a more appropriate answer sometimes and that is simply to bite your tongue.

Bosses are a unique group as they control your current situation and possibly even your future.  During the interview process, references or employment checks are the last portion of the puzzle to be completed.  Candidates feel that they have wrapped the job and then say anything negative about their current employer are not in the best place.  Once the interview process is complete, the interviewing company will look to the current employer for reference, job compatibility and “off the record” comments, ones that will effect the outcome of the offer process.  I wrote earlier on not burning bridges and this is the same concept.  Don’t even pick up the match.  No matter what you say, even if it is not really negative, can effect the outcome of the process.  Remain POSITIVE at all times.  Nothing negative said will ever respond with a positive outcome for you in the interview game.

If you are looking to differentiate yourself from what your boss has done, simply emphasize your approach.  Let them know who you are and do not reflect the negative attitudes of your superior.  So if there is a call made to your boss, and there very well might be, the call can be positive and one that enlists a helpful reference vs. that of a soured supervisor. 

Let me leave you with this.  I hear often from candidates that their current employer is not listed as a reference.  Savvy recruiters and companies do not check just the given references, but seek candid information about the employee from all available sources.  They will track down the department head or VP that sits over the candidate and garner information off the record that will allow them to make the most informed decision.  Be prepared, it will happen.  People are investing in you, so they want to make sure they are getting what they are paying for.  Do not ever think that their is someone that will not be called.  Keep your guard up and you will keep those bridges connected.