Juggling Job Opps - Part 2

[ozbound]

OK - now that I've decided to line up some options for myself-- since my current employer still hasn't hired me permanently--I've sent out some resumes and am starting to get calls for interviews. I am now faced with that delicate challenge of scheduling interviews, possibly asking for an hour or two off work here and there, and showing up at work "all dressed up" (my usual mode is "business casual") without making it obvious that I'm going on interviews!  I am looking for advice on how to do this. Naturally, I will try to schedule interviews during lunch hours or after work when possible, but that's not always the case (yesterday I got a call from a place that wants me to take a 2-hour test before I even get an interview! I told them I'd check my schedule and get back to them--but it's a job I'm kind of "iffy" about to begin with so I'm not sure if it's worth the trouble).  And when someone asks me where I'm going and why I'm all dressed up, do I fib and say it's a friend's funeral, or go for the mysterious "appointment?"

Can you tell I'm new at this?

[Jackie G]

Oz

I think this answer has been given already in response to somebody else a while back so you may want to search.

If you're still there on a temporary position, you have to look out for number one  - nobody else is going to!  I think therefore that you should speak to your immediate supervisor and say that you are obviously looking to find something permanent (remind them again!) and that as they don't seem to be able to offer you that, you are on the market for a job.  Stress you're trying to schedule interviews at lunchtime or after work but that you sometimes have the dilemma of a worktime interview and whether they will cut you any slack about time off.

As for the clothes issue, I would say I just got a new outfit.... or felt like dressing up a bit more.... or going to meet friends for a meal after work.... theatre.... concert.... something like that?  Or just be mysterious.  Date, even?

Oh, and as for the 2 hour test before an interview, unless there's a very good reason for it, I would definitely pass on that.  After interview maybe.

Jackie, Peer Moderator
www.iqps.org

[gee4]

Agree with Jackie.  

G

[trulyjulie]

Are you working through a temp agency? If so, maybe someone from there can run interference for you by explaining to your employer that you might need some time off for interviews. Problem is, if you are absent too often for interviews, you might get replaced at your current job. Since they're not going to hire you, they have nothing to lose by letting you go. So this is a delicate situation.

You don't need to explain your wardrobe to anybody. Let them wonder...

[ozbound]

Thanks for the advice. Well, the thing is, I'm still hoping to get hired permanently here--there are a lot of things I like about this place--while at the same time covering my options. So I don't want it to look like I've given up here!

[Jackie G]

Oz

let them you know want to stay - again!  The power of the broken record is truly amazing, sometimes people just need to be told more and often!

Jackie, Peer Moderator
www.iqps.org

[potofgold]

I'm not sure why the 2-hour test is a problem?  Several companies I applied to last year work with the "test-screening" process to eliminate those candidates who look good on paper but can't actually do the job - I found this is particularly relevant in the public sector.

For my current job (large city council - uk) there were 21 candidates tested and only 3 were subesequently interviewed as it was deemed that the others were either unable to carry out the tasks or could not work at sufficient speed to be deemed suitable to meet the requirements of the job.

All the tests I were given were very relevant to the job and the Director wanted to ensure that his time was not taken up interviewing candidates who would not be able to cope in the high-volume environment he operates in.

Whilst it is a bind to have to take the time to undertake these tests, from an employer's point of view it screens the candidates deemed suitable from their application at speed to ensure only capable candidates are thus interviewed.  Also, HR staff are able to invigilate tests and prepare the results for the interviewer (imperative when this involves senior staff) thus minimising the actual time required for the interview itself.

----------------------------------
If you're using dc please visit - potofgold.awenet.org:420

[Jackie G]

What an inefficient non cost effective way to run these tests.

If, as I suspect, these 2 hour tests are psychometric, then they are expensive to run and administer, which means you should be keeping them for shortlisted candidates only.

After all, if I were shortlisted for a job, I would be more inclined to make 2 hours in my schedule to return to take tests, rather than take tests and then be interviewed (or not) for a job and with people I might ultimately not really want myself.

Just my 02.

Jackie, Peer Moderator
www.iqps.org

[potofgold]

I don't understand why work-related tests are not effective nor cost efficient?  To give a secretary a spelling test, typing test, and dictation is the best proof that they can actually do the bare requirements of the job.  

Part of the test I had for my current post was copy-typing a cabinet report - which in itself is not something I would do, but their would be occasions where it might be necessary and the speed/accuracy of completion would be imperative to my ability to do the job.  Other tests included a diary-management exercise and also an in-tray exercise.

With the huge quantity of suitable applicants for most the senior posts here it is the most cost-effective way of reducing the log-list to a manageable number.  In effect, the only candidates to be tested would be those on the longlist, which would thus be reduced to a shortlist after the tests (assuming all candidates tested had met the requirements for the job, then on average the top 5 would be interviewed).

It does not cost a great deal to ask an HR officer to give up a morning to run tests for 20 people.  It would not be practical to interview all candidates by a senior officer, then test them all - by testing first the senior officer would then see less candidates.

----------------------------------
If you're using dc please visit - potofgold.awenet.org:420

[Jackie G]

You misunderstand.

Typing, spelling tests do not take 2 hours.  Psychometric tests do.  And I suspect this is what she is being asked to do.

The time taken to run these tests isn't expensive in terms of manpower.  However to BUY and run the tests is because you have to have an accredited person running/scoring the tests.  Trust me, I know about these things, I had a client who used SHL testing and it was phenomenally expensive, which is why I said they should only be run on candidates who are SHORTLISTED not everyone!

And actually, as a practising PA of more than 20 years experience, personally these days, unless it was at an agency where they have to do it by law, I would be purely insulted to be asked to undertake a typing and spelling test and would certainly refuse!

Jackie, Peer Moderator
www.iqps.org

[JessW]

Jackie

Your last paragraph certainly rings true with my own beliefs - it smacks too much of them calling me a liar (which I am not) and belittling all the previous decades worth of work/experience I have to contribute by demanding that I spell the word occur (example, honest).

Jess

[catsmeat]

Hmmmm .... one staffing agency in town could have done with putting its own staff through some of the tests described.  One post, advertised on a billboard outside, stated "good grammer essential"

[ozbound]

The test was for a City job. Most City and State agencies/schools/etc. test for their jobs. It is most efficient since they have to weed through so many applicants to figure out who is best qualified.

However, I decided not to take the test, after weighing the amount of schedule juggling on my part against how much I actually wanted the job (if I'd really wanted it I would have made the time!)

I DID go on an interview for another position the other day, though! It's at an architectural firm, pretty much the same stuff I'm currently doing but good pay and benes. I like the place; it's a very attractive office with nice folks. They and are familiar with some names at my current job, which is interesting. They said I'm quite qualified, so that's a good sign. They're making a decision with in the next couple of weeks. So I'll see how things work out. My supervisor here has been busy as all get out this week but I'm planning to rattle her cage this afternoon or tomorrow and tell her I'm looking around just in case... you gotta do what you gotta do...

[potofgold]

Unfortunately most public sector companies, and in particular local authorities, expect candidates to undertake practical tests as part of the application process (generally including some form of typing, whether it be copy-typing or preparing a draft response to correspondence).

Last year I had 3 interviews for local authority positions (PA to Leader of the Council, PA to Director, and PA to Strategic Director) and at all 3 I was called in for approx 90 mins of testing, 2 of which included a spelling test and 1 had a 4-page copy-typing report.

It can be very difficult once you're in public sector to move to the private sector - after 6 years working for a housing association I found many private companies would not shortlist me purely as I was public sector (even ones I applied to thru agencies where I had actually temped at the organisation previously and been invited back on 2 or 3 occasions for the same job that was being recruited to).  It would therefore be foolish to refuse to undertake tests as it would effectively block my progression unless I leave the sector (which, as mentioned above, is not particularly easy - especially when the salaries/benefits of public sector are generous).

----------------------------------
If you're using dc please visit - potofgold.awenet.org:420