On Wednesday I recieved a phone call while I was with the Credit Union. It was a company I applied for a while ago, offering me an interview on Thursday. The same day that I was due to be interviewed by no limits. This meant I needed to be in Portsmouth at 3 after the 11:30 interview in Southampton. It also threw off my usual preparation as I could not focus on just one organisation. After an evening of training I finally got down to planning my day around 10pm.
The day started badly. Stomach Ache and slight naseua are never the best thing to wake up to. However, by the time I set off for New Limits things had cleared up a bit and I felt a bit better. I arrived at No Limits with around 5 minutes to spare.
After a brief fight with the door I made my way in. I was met by a young woman who informed me the other interview had overrun and offered me a seat. I took the opportunity to quiz her about the organisation and we chatted amiably for 10 minutes or so.
After about 15 minutes the managers emerged from the interview room, took my name and then apologised as they did not realise they were meant to be interviewing me, apparently there had been some mix up and rather than interviewing for one specific role they had people for three different roles. Confusing!
I accepted this of course, was directed to the interview room, offered a drink and waited a bit longer. I talked with one of the interviewers about working with the Credit Union, my origins while I waited for the other to get the job description and begin the interview. At 11:55 my interview began, with the standard question about the company and role. It was followed by a mention of Lizzie, although the name rang a bell with me, the fact I had not heard it, sent the alarm bells ringing with my interviewer who embarrasedly informed me I was possibly in the wrong place. All initial interviews were conducted by Lizzie in the adjacent building owned by a different charity, apparently the two are not in any way directly linked but one is funding the other to employ people. After some frantic phone calls I was sent in the right direction only to be informed there was no longer any time for me to be interviewed and that I would be informed of a new date and time at some point in the future. I took it upon myself this morning to ring and organise myself though, just in case.
As I left I was bemused at the whole situation. It was amazing it was able to happen at all.
1. I failed to understand the interview was not with the organisation. I took a phonecall and wrote things down but got confused.
2. No Limits did not know who they were meant to be interviewing and thus were ready to interview me.
3. One of the interviewer asked "You're Anthony right?" He had met me the day before, but normally when a interviewer says this, it means they are confirming you are the right person.
4. Lizzie made no attempt to contact me or work out where I was, for an interview, where if I failed to attend I lost my benefits.
5. Each party was unaware of the others confusion.
This left me 3 hours till my next interview with a company in Portsmouth. I found my way with no difficulty ending up with about an hour to wander round the historic dockyard before finding my way to the company offices, 100 yards away. The interview was my first in a while and I was a little rusty to start with. The company started by asking, not telling, me about what I knew of the company. I had done some research but it had been minor due to the short notice and other interview. Another question involved breaking the rules of interviewing as I was asked to give my opinion of both their website and brand. The Marketing manager who would hire me, was himself unhappy with it, and I was lucky that I threw caution to the wind and criticised it, albeit tentatively. I feel the interview went reasonably well but that my lack of experience in design may let me down to a candidate with a similar background.
So ends the week and already I have something for every day next week, including 2 interviews. Busy times, hopefully leading to full time employment. I will cover funding in a different post.
Thursday, 29 April 2010
Monday, 26 April 2010
A Massive Week
I have lost the will to blog recently. Its been down to a number of things but today I want to update you on what for me, is the biggest week since I finished University.
Short of today, which I get to take off with the added joys of a stomach bug, my calender is full. My fingers will remain crossed for the entire week, but if just one thing goes to plan, I have cause to be happy.
Tomorrow I return to the Job Centre, to phase 2, New Deal. I don't expect much but it will be interesting nonetheless to see what is suggested, what I am offered and whether 3 weeks after my dispute, I find myself in another. I will welcome any offer of training which gives me something useful and spurn any suggestion that is no more than a time wasting exercise. Fingers crossed we can have a good discussion and come to a good agreement.
Wednesday and I have a meeting at SVS (Student Voluntary Service) to use funder finder. Along with Phil, I will search for someone who might be interested in funding the S.C.U to support me. If successful I at least have a chance of sticking around in the role, if we cannot find anything, then my path is clear, and any major involvement with the Union will end in June, along with my stay in Southampton. I also then have a training course in the evening, which will provide me with further useful skills.
Thursday signals an interview with No Limits for a role only available to the unemployed. I hold the qualifications and skills they need and even experience in the voluntary sector. I just hope I can convince them I am worthy of a chance.
So fingers crossed. This week is pivotal to my future. I only hope my long search is finally at an end.
Short of today, which I get to take off with the added joys of a stomach bug, my calender is full. My fingers will remain crossed for the entire week, but if just one thing goes to plan, I have cause to be happy.
Tomorrow I return to the Job Centre, to phase 2, New Deal. I don't expect much but it will be interesting nonetheless to see what is suggested, what I am offered and whether 3 weeks after my dispute, I find myself in another. I will welcome any offer of training which gives me something useful and spurn any suggestion that is no more than a time wasting exercise. Fingers crossed we can have a good discussion and come to a good agreement.
Wednesday and I have a meeting at SVS (Student Voluntary Service) to use funder finder. Along with Phil, I will search for someone who might be interested in funding the S.C.U to support me. If successful I at least have a chance of sticking around in the role, if we cannot find anything, then my path is clear, and any major involvement with the Union will end in June, along with my stay in Southampton. I also then have a training course in the evening, which will provide me with further useful skills.
Thursday signals an interview with No Limits for a role only available to the unemployed. I hold the qualifications and skills they need and even experience in the voluntary sector. I just hope I can convince them I am worthy of a chance.
So fingers crossed. This week is pivotal to my future. I only hope my long search is finally at an end.
Saturday, 10 April 2010
Importance of clear communication
Communicating clearly is an important skill. It regularly turns up on job specifications and being able to both verbal and written communication can be immensely powerful ways of expression. I have always prided myself on having strong communication skills, particularly written. Yesterday I wrote a post however, which was not clear, and gave the wrong message. I feel it necessary to clarify the meaning behind the post since the responses did not match the intent.
Yesterdays post was mostly written from the recruiters perspective based on my experience of them. I realise rereading it that this was not clear. My questions as to why an over qualified person would go for a low paying, low skilled job were not my questions, but the questions that a perspective employer might ask and the thoughts that might be running through their mind. It was not personal belief written directly from my opinion and I was not belittling such jobs, nor was I stating I was too good for them. I was instead suggesting that recruiters for such roles might look at my C.V and background and question my motivations and the likelihood that 1. I wanted the job and 2. that I would stick around. As I said this is from my direct experience in applying for such jobs.
In other news I am not going to be applying for the school job since it is term time only and does not start until June. The amount it pays would also not be enough to cover any potential rent. Given I may not even be in Southampton in July it seems counter productive.
Yesterdays post was mostly written from the recruiters perspective based on my experience of them. I realise rereading it that this was not clear. My questions as to why an over qualified person would go for a low paying, low skilled job were not my questions, but the questions that a perspective employer might ask and the thoughts that might be running through their mind. It was not personal belief written directly from my opinion and I was not belittling such jobs, nor was I stating I was too good for them. I was instead suggesting that recruiters for such roles might look at my C.V and background and question my motivations and the likelihood that 1. I wanted the job and 2. that I would stick around. As I said this is from my direct experience in applying for such jobs.
In other news I am not going to be applying for the school job since it is term time only and does not start until June. The amount it pays would also not be enough to cover any potential rent. Given I may not even be in Southampton in July it seems counter productive.
Friday, 9 April 2010
The Admin Question
Further to yesterday's discussion with the job centre I have just applied for a 16 hours a week clerical position in a school. I have applied because it is 16 hours and pays. I could still do the volunteering role and earn nearly enough to live off. But I dont think I will get the job.
This was something the advisor said was putting up barriers. I call it being realistic. Because short of lying at the interview (and even then it would be barely believable) I am going to harpoon my own candiacy.
The question an employer asks when you go for jobs in which you are over qualified is of course why. You can state that its good experience, you just want to be working or even that you want to work in a school, but that wont be the end of it and they will press you. The employer wants someone loyal. They dont want to fill a job only to need to fill it again in a few months and you represent a risk.
The duties are after all basic. There is no benefit to having someone with business experience doing the filing, inputting data and supporting the admin staff. They know you wont be around for long. You know it, they know it. Ambition in these roles is not necessarily a virtue when what the employer wants is someone steady and reliable. So here comes the million dollar question.
Say, six months down the line you are offered a marketing position in another firm would you take it?
You're trapped. They know it's what you are ultimately after and where your ambition lies. Even if you say no, its obvious you'd want the position and would resent having to turn it down. Its a no win situation. One pulled on me twice so far in admin interviews. If you say yes it shows you represent a risk, that you will leave sooner rather than later down the line. The amusing thing about this is the more impressed with you they are, the more they are likely to worry about losing you.
This is from experience btw. Advice on how to bypass this issue is welcome. I admit its something I struggle to get my head around.
This was something the advisor said was putting up barriers. I call it being realistic. Because short of lying at the interview (and even then it would be barely believable) I am going to harpoon my own candiacy.
The question an employer asks when you go for jobs in which you are over qualified is of course why. You can state that its good experience, you just want to be working or even that you want to work in a school, but that wont be the end of it and they will press you. The employer wants someone loyal. They dont want to fill a job only to need to fill it again in a few months and you represent a risk.
The duties are after all basic. There is no benefit to having someone with business experience doing the filing, inputting data and supporting the admin staff. They know you wont be around for long. You know it, they know it. Ambition in these roles is not necessarily a virtue when what the employer wants is someone steady and reliable. So here comes the million dollar question.
Say, six months down the line you are offered a marketing position in another firm would you take it?
You're trapped. They know it's what you are ultimately after and where your ambition lies. Even if you say no, its obvious you'd want the position and would resent having to turn it down. Its a no win situation. One pulled on me twice so far in admin interviews. If you say yes it shows you represent a risk, that you will leave sooner rather than later down the line. The amusing thing about this is the more impressed with you they are, the more they are likely to worry about losing you.
This is from experience btw. Advice on how to bypass this issue is welcome. I admit its something I struggle to get my head around.
Thursday, 8 April 2010
End of the line?
I am expecting this post is going to split views and could lead to outrage on both sides of the fence. Before I explain I would like to state that although I welcome any input, in this my mind is made up and I can be a stubborn git. I believe I have been treated unfairly and intend to fight the perceived injustice as hard as I can.
I have been claiming JSA now for nearly 6 months since finishing my masters degree in Marketing Management. In that time I have been unsuccessful in my attempts to find a marketing job and to help improve my employment prospects I have taken on two different roles. Firstly I am working in a voluntary role with a local not for profit organisation and my experience and approach has led to my appointment as Marketing manager within the organisation. Secondly I am working as a freelance writer for Fubra Limited who own a wide variety of sites. I have at various intervals broadened my job search to include other fields, further distances and lower wages all in the hope of kick starting my career in marketing.
My job searchers agreement states I should look at roles in marketing assistant, marketing executive and admin areas. It is this third, admin area which has led to the dispute. I have always looked for roles with the approach of asking what they can do for me. If a role will add to my skill set or build upon existing skills then I have applied. Today I was told that this approach was not flexible enough and I should be looking at all admin jobs regardless of what they involve or their job prospects. I can see little reason for this, other than its inclusion of the third item on my job seekers agreement list. The advisor I spoke with basically suggested that my main goal should be to come off JSA and therefore look at any role I can do. My argument centred around where you draw the line. If I do a job which largely involves making tea and coffee in an office (thus admin) what difference is there to my future if I instead chose to stack shelves or work construction. Neither would help me, both would get me off of JSA. We could not reach an agreement and she suspended my job seekers allowance.
My issue is this: I am currently getting the experience I need to kick start my career and going into any admin job regardless of duties would merely be taking a step backwards. I am unwilling to do this. It cost £6,200 to get my Masters and I won't throw that away just to satisfy the job centre. I am however, willing to consider any role which will benefit me in improving future prospects. What is more is I have not broken the terms of my job seekers agreement. The agreement states:
"Take at last 4-5 steps a week to look for work. Apply for a min of 4 advertised vacancies a week, if none available make 4 speculative approaches to employers. Keep a written record of jobsearch and bring to each review. Use internet www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk, phone adviser; 0845 6060 234, use Job points. Has been informed of work trails. Read ES40 for more info. "
I am not some employment dodger eager to live off benefits. I have been applying to at least 4 jobs each week, sometimes up to 10 and thereby fulfilling the criteria set out for me. I believe I should have the right to choose which jobs to apply for and am justified in turning down low skilled/menial admin jobs I would have been able to do straight out of school. I invested in education and I think it is unreasonable to be asked to ignore it.
At the time of suspension I was asked to write the issue as I saw it and my argument as it were. I was given pen and a piece of paper. I was given no further means to contact this "higher authority" which I believe to be unreasonable. I also think it is unfair to be made to write your argument there and then when you are still under the emotional stress brought about by the fact you have just had benefits suspended. I was very angry and although I did not convey this in my writing, I certainly did not structure my argument or include all the relevant points as well as I could have given the time.
I can see things from their point of view. The advisor pointed out, rightly, that I been unsuccessful in my marketing applications and therefore have to be more flexible. This I was willing to accept and I stated a desire and willing to apply for any job which helped me walk (even baby steps) along the marketing path. What I took issue with is that the job centre would sooner see me working at McDonald's than being supported to help begin my marketing career. I believe this to be out and out wrong and if it does indeed come across as the case I intend to make a noise about it as I feel strongly it is the wrong approach. I was egged in to getting a degree and vocational skills in the form of a masters by the government, if they then want me to just to pretend it doesn't exist that simply isn't fair.
I expect that my review will lead to me being taken off JSA and thus having all support withdrawn. Its a measly £24 anyway. Nonetheless I will continue to argue my point with anyone who will listen and fight for a change in the way graduates/professionals are treated. It has been suggested to me that I write to my local MP about this, something I intend to do. I have no idea whether this will actually help or result in anything but what I simply refuse to do is lie down and take it.
I have been claiming JSA now for nearly 6 months since finishing my masters degree in Marketing Management. In that time I have been unsuccessful in my attempts to find a marketing job and to help improve my employment prospects I have taken on two different roles. Firstly I am working in a voluntary role with a local not for profit organisation and my experience and approach has led to my appointment as Marketing manager within the organisation. Secondly I am working as a freelance writer for Fubra Limited who own a wide variety of sites. I have at various intervals broadened my job search to include other fields, further distances and lower wages all in the hope of kick starting my career in marketing.
My job searchers agreement states I should look at roles in marketing assistant, marketing executive and admin areas. It is this third, admin area which has led to the dispute. I have always looked for roles with the approach of asking what they can do for me. If a role will add to my skill set or build upon existing skills then I have applied. Today I was told that this approach was not flexible enough and I should be looking at all admin jobs regardless of what they involve or their job prospects. I can see little reason for this, other than its inclusion of the third item on my job seekers agreement list. The advisor I spoke with basically suggested that my main goal should be to come off JSA and therefore look at any role I can do. My argument centred around where you draw the line. If I do a job which largely involves making tea and coffee in an office (thus admin) what difference is there to my future if I instead chose to stack shelves or work construction. Neither would help me, both would get me off of JSA. We could not reach an agreement and she suspended my job seekers allowance.
My issue is this: I am currently getting the experience I need to kick start my career and going into any admin job regardless of duties would merely be taking a step backwards. I am unwilling to do this. It cost £6,200 to get my Masters and I won't throw that away just to satisfy the job centre. I am however, willing to consider any role which will benefit me in improving future prospects. What is more is I have not broken the terms of my job seekers agreement. The agreement states:
"Take at last 4-5 steps a week to look for work. Apply for a min of 4 advertised vacancies a week, if none available make 4 speculative approaches to employers. Keep a written record of jobsearch and bring to each review. Use internet www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk, phone adviser; 0845 6060 234, use Job points. Has been informed of work trails. Read ES40 for more info. "
I am not some employment dodger eager to live off benefits. I have been applying to at least 4 jobs each week, sometimes up to 10 and thereby fulfilling the criteria set out for me. I believe I should have the right to choose which jobs to apply for and am justified in turning down low skilled/menial admin jobs I would have been able to do straight out of school. I invested in education and I think it is unreasonable to be asked to ignore it.
At the time of suspension I was asked to write the issue as I saw it and my argument as it were. I was given pen and a piece of paper. I was given no further means to contact this "higher authority" which I believe to be unreasonable. I also think it is unfair to be made to write your argument there and then when you are still under the emotional stress brought about by the fact you have just had benefits suspended. I was very angry and although I did not convey this in my writing, I certainly did not structure my argument or include all the relevant points as well as I could have given the time.
I can see things from their point of view. The advisor pointed out, rightly, that I been unsuccessful in my marketing applications and therefore have to be more flexible. This I was willing to accept and I stated a desire and willing to apply for any job which helped me walk (even baby steps) along the marketing path. What I took issue with is that the job centre would sooner see me working at McDonald's than being supported to help begin my marketing career. I believe this to be out and out wrong and if it does indeed come across as the case I intend to make a noise about it as I feel strongly it is the wrong approach. I was egged in to getting a degree and vocational skills in the form of a masters by the government, if they then want me to just to pretend it doesn't exist that simply isn't fair.
I expect that my review will lead to me being taken off JSA and thus having all support withdrawn. Its a measly £24 anyway. Nonetheless I will continue to argue my point with anyone who will listen and fight for a change in the way graduates/professionals are treated. It has been suggested to me that I write to my local MP about this, something I intend to do. I have no idea whether this will actually help or result in anything but what I simply refuse to do is lie down and take it.
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Shifting Focus
It can be a hard thing to do. We all get set in our ways and to begin to change things can be a real challenge. I had noticed that in the last month, despite the fact I am now arguably more employable, I had been getting less success with my applications, less responses and less interviews. This didn't make sense, until I realised something important.
My approach was wrong. I was keen to state how although I was inexperienced I was willing to learn. My C.V catalogued my positions of authority at university and how they demonstrated useful business skills. My covering letter explained how a group project had given me harsh deadlines to produce a large project.
All of which are irrelevant now. I have been working in a marketing management role for 2 months +. I have produced articles for deadlines on a website, I have been to meetings, written a strategy, liased, networked and carried out day to day marketing duties. Stating that I learned all these useful skills at University is actually hampering my progress. What I should say is I have demonstrated all these things, practiced and used the skills I have learned. I am not prepared for working in business, I am working in business. I cannot imagine the strange impression I have been given employers. "This candidate manages all marketing for a small organisation, yet all he wants to talk about is how his university societies taught him to deal with regular meetings and how a group project gave him team experience." Something does not add up.
I may have only been in the role for a few months, but my experiences in it trump the academic, I just wish I could have been quicker on the up take. My C.V is now dramatically reduced and my covering letter template for ever changed. If there is any general lesson to learn from this it is that as situations change you have to really consider every little aspect which you are showing employers. Does it reflect you now, or you of the past and what can you do to represent yourself better.
My approach was wrong. I was keen to state how although I was inexperienced I was willing to learn. My C.V catalogued my positions of authority at university and how they demonstrated useful business skills. My covering letter explained how a group project had given me harsh deadlines to produce a large project.
All of which are irrelevant now. I have been working in a marketing management role for 2 months +. I have produced articles for deadlines on a website, I have been to meetings, written a strategy, liased, networked and carried out day to day marketing duties. Stating that I learned all these useful skills at University is actually hampering my progress. What I should say is I have demonstrated all these things, practiced and used the skills I have learned. I am not prepared for working in business, I am working in business. I cannot imagine the strange impression I have been given employers. "This candidate manages all marketing for a small organisation, yet all he wants to talk about is how his university societies taught him to deal with regular meetings and how a group project gave him team experience." Something does not add up.
I may have only been in the role for a few months, but my experiences in it trump the academic, I just wish I could have been quicker on the up take. My C.V is now dramatically reduced and my covering letter template for ever changed. If there is any general lesson to learn from this it is that as situations change you have to really consider every little aspect which you are showing employers. Does it reflect you now, or you of the past and what can you do to represent yourself better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)