Careerchat II

[Inigima]

For those following the saga of my wayward minion, he turned a corner a few months ago and is actually among my best now. I stopped making him meet me in the morning so that I wouldn't have to care if he was punctual; I convinced him to quit World of Warcraft and he actually is pretty punctual now, although we'll see what havoc Destiny 2 wreaks on him. He cares a lot about doing a good job now and I can generally send him to do something and know that it will get done. He never complains or tries to get out of doing something, even if it's something that sucks.

This is actually something I have seen happen in my organization before. In a previous role someone in another department was hired who did a crap job and didn't want to do anything. They calmly corrected over and over and just generally did their own work around her and eventually she came to match the work ethic of the rest of the team. I'm not sure if it's true, but I have had a theory for a while now that if you surround a poor performer with a team with high performance standards they will eventually adapt and rise to the standard set by the rest of the team.

EDIT: I have of course told him that I am proud of him and also told his actual boss the same.
 

11 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Does anybody else have a job where they only exist in case sh!t happens and they have to manage it?  I have averaged 30 minutes 'actual work' per day over the last 7 shifts.  Working in the sleepiest borough in London can be a lot boring.

I have had this in the past. It was very boring and sometimes made me feel like I wasn't useful. On the other hand, it's a good time to get a lot of other things done, whether it's professional development to move to a better role or just, like, reading.

[baxus]

11 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Does anybody else have a job where they only exist in case sh!t happens and they have to manage it?  I have averaged 30 minutes 'actual work' per day over the last 7 shifts.  Working in the sleepiest borough in London can be a lot boring.

My job is not depending on shit happening before I do something but it does include occasional wait for other people to do their part before I can do mine and yes, it sure is boring.

I try to enjoy those slow periods as much as I can since they always herald a period of utter chaos.

[Liffguard]

I strongly dislike my job. I feel a bit guilty saying it because by most standards it's a pretty decent job. I get treated extremely well. I like the people I work with. I get to make a positive difference in society. The pay isn't great but the conditions are flexible and the managers very reasonable. But I have to be honest that it's just not working for me.

Partly it's that a "pure" office job is not for me. I don't mind working in an office environment. What I hate is arriving in the morning, sitting down at a workstation and just sitting at that workstation for eight hours straight. Sure I can get up and go for a walk here and there, but all of the actual work itself takes place sat at the same desk. Even having meetings or presentations or something would be better, but nope, it's just eight hours of desk-sitting. I cannot cope with this long-term.

Secondly it's that the subject matter is profoundly depressing. I'm in a public services role that generally deals with either the most vulnerable or the most scummy members of society (and boy does it get complicated and draining when the two categories frequently overlap). At first I found it interesting, and the work itself mentally engaging, but now I have no remaining interest in watching the same local people blow up their lives over and over again. Maybe that's an empathy failure on my part but regardless, it's a true reflection of my feelings.

I'm putting some serious thought into completely re-rolling my life and going back to university. I've had this slow-burning desire to study a science for years now and a lot of the options offered by the Open University look really interesting. I recently came into a not-insubstantial sum of money (family inheritence), enough to get me through another degree without going into debt (though I will have to be extremely frugal with living expenses). It feels like the right time.

Not after advice specifically (though it's not unwelcome either). More just trying to sort my thoughts out by writing them down.

[Datepalm]

Does it have to be either/or - although it sounds like maybe you're in the right place for a big plunge - could you try an online class and see if it's a good fit, or dial back to part time work?

Alternatively, would it be interesting for you to take the kind of experience you're gaining presently and apply it to something less office-y? Like looking work in an NGO/Charity of some kind - counseling, outreach, community/youth work, or even fundraising or logistics for this kind of organization, sounds like it might be a next step from what you're doing (at a guess - I assume you're not qualified to take on professional social work, but at least here there's a big zone of community work/NGO positions which doesn't usually call for a social work degree. Admittedly it often doesn't pay great either.)

[Liffguard]

1 hour ago, Datepalm said:

Does it have to be either/or - although it sounds like maybe you're in the right place for a big plunge - could you try an online class and see if it's a good fit, or dial back to part time work?

That's definitely an option on the table, full-time study alongside part-time work. I'm mainly considering the Open University at the moment, which is almost entirely online and distance learning. Cheaper than a physical university and way more flexible.

Being totally honest, NGO/charity work doesn't really appeal to me, although it is something that I've considered in the past. I'll certainly keep it in mind at least, but it wouldn't be my first choice.

[S John]

Bumping this for some advice for a friend on salary negotiations (seriously, it's not me).

Person was actively sought out by a former employer for the position of the person's former boss who retired.  Former boss was making 25k more per year than this person makes now ~90k in total.  

Position involves management of 10 people and multi-million dollar contracts.  Person doesn't have a lot of experience managing people, but is well versed in working with the specific kind of contracts involved, knows most of the staff personally, and is liked and knowledgeable about the work. 

Research suggests that a competitive salary for the work in question in the area is in the mid 80’s but the initial offer came in at 68k, and went up to 70k when the person balked. 

Now, I understand that this person should not expect to come in making the same as an experienced manager such as the person they would be replacing, but I would think that 68-70k has to be viewed as a blatant low-ball, right?  When the previous person was at 90?  It's a promotion for sure, and an opportunity... but the offer is only a small (less than 5k) raise to go from current low stress generally liked environment to managing 10 people and bearing ultimate responsibility for major contracts.  I’m not sure that’s a good deal.

The issue here is basically the general feeling of sliminess one gets when pushing for more money, and guilt and disappointment at being specifically sought out and going through the entire process but possibly having to say no to the offer due to money.  

I've been adamant that the person should stand their ground and be prepared to walk away if they don't come back with a sweeter deal.  This ain’t a charity.  It’s their job to get you as cheaply as they can, but it’s your job to not let them do that.  I feel like a 10k raise ought to be the absolute bottom, something in the mid 70’s.  That would still be 15k less than what the outgoing manager made, 10k less than the apparent local competitive rate, and leaves some room for the fact that the person lacks management experience.  

Any thoughts from the gallery on this?

[Iskaral Pust]

It’s unusual to know precisely what a predecessor was getting paid, which anchors his expectations higher than normal.  Usually candidate expectations are anchored at current pay plus a bump.  So first of all, I wouldn’t get too hung up on whether he gets paid the same as the predecessor.  There may be a significant gap in ability and experience and other factors.  I’d be more concerned about getting paid below the market rate. 

The employer might genuinely feel like they’re giving him an opportunity to step up to the next level that he otherwise wouldn’t get right now.  If they think they’re taking a risk on him, they may not want to pay full freight until he has proven himself.  And they may have a budget constraint on what they think they can pay to any replacement for this role. (Less likely but possible)

So he needs to not get too knotted about being low-balled; that makes it too emotional.  This might not be low-balling.  He should instead decide whether this is an attractive opportunity, and at what comp level is he willing to make the switch.  He always has the option to say “no thanks, it won’t work for me at that level of comp” and walk away without losing anything (zero sunk cost).  Always know your walk-away number.  He should share his data on the market level comp for this role, with presumably comparable experience and qualifications, in order to raise their anchor point for expectations.   He could even tell them that he knows his predecessor was at 90.  He can decide to be aggressive and chase a higher number like 75, 80 or even more, but know the risk that being too aggressive could very likely torpedo the offer.  If they raised their offer from 68 to only 70, they’re signaling very limited tolerance here.  

If he’s not willing to take the job at 70, then he has nothing to lose by asking for 75 or 80.   If he is willing to take it at 70, then he obviously has something to lose by playing hard-ball.  They’ve already countered once and won’t like being pushed harder; it suggests he thinks they weren’t negotiating in good faith or that they lack integrity in their counter.  Displaying a lack of trust often kills the conversation.

If the starting salary feels low, there’s always room to discuss performance-related bonuses and/or salary growth potential linked to specific, measurable targets.  You can create other upside that has less resistance.  If the employer is wary of paying for an unknown outcome, then establish what will be paid if a positive outcome is achieved. 

This almost feels like a case study from a negotiations class in my MBA: understanding your anchor and theirs, are they realistic, how to drag their anchor higher; use objective third party data that makes your case more reasonable rather than making it personal or subjective; decide on your walk-away number; if they’re currently below your walk-away then push for more because you’ve nothing to lose; if already at or above your walk-away then be careful about risking what you’ve decided is a good-enough deal and instead look to create upside for yourself in another format that’s less objectionable. 

[baxus]

@S John

I'd definitely recommend walking away from that offer. Sure, your friend may not expect the full 90k but anything below 80k in such situation is borderline insulting. I would most definitely not continue negotiations if I was offered the number so far below market value.

[Isis]

Can they just flat out ask 'if X is the market rate, are you able to explain why I have only been offered Y at this time?' Like, maybe this is a probation period and the salary will rise after a certain time? But I'm pretty sure they should have mentioned that already.

I don't think what the predecessor was on has all that much to do with the offer being made and shouldn't really be brought into negotiations. That#s quite crass, no?

[S John]

4 hours ago, baxus said:

@S John

I'd definitely recommend walking away from that offer. Sure, your friend may not expect the full 90k but anything below 80k in such situation is borderline insulting. I would most definitely not continue negotiations if I was offered the number so far below market value.

Well that was my guy reaction as well, but I think @Iskaral Pust makes some good points (thanks for that, by the way)  about the fact that the employer is taking a little bit of a risk in terms of management skill.  Everything else is there, and the person is a known quantity to them, but lacking in some of the experience they are looking for.  Still it feels to me like they really did go in on the low end, but you have to balance that with the promotion opportunity (more prestigious job title, etc).  I think the main thing is that the person, having worked there before, knows how demanding the work is going to be and has to decide if the promotion is worth it when the current role is not much less money and way less stress.  

4 hours ago, Isis said:

Can they just flat out ask 'if X is the market rate, are you able to explain why I have only been offered Y at this time?' Like, maybe this is a probation period and the salary will rise after a certain time? But I'm pretty sure they should have mentioned that already.

I don't think what the predecessor was on has all that much to do with the offer being made and shouldn't really be brought into negotiations. That#s quite crass, no?

Yea that might be a good question to ask when they speak again.  The person did have 3rd party market data and used that as the baseline in the initial conversation.  As for the second part, the previous persons salary was published online (as is common in this particular line of work) but wasn't brought into the negotiations at all.  It's just something that we happen to know. 

[HexMachina]

So, moving on from the crushing disappointment of my last job effort which I had and then didn’t because of medical stuff. Took some time to compose myself and now I’m back on job sites etc. Weirdly this time I have already been actively targeted by recruiters on three ocassions since Friday. Which is a lot compared to my last job hunting attempts.

Anyway, why am I here again? Well, to ask whether any of you have experience working in recruitment, and if so what you’re honest opinion of it is. The long and short is that the limited experience of work I have seems to give me a skill set that lends itself to recruitment, and th3e are the jobs people target me for. In the past I always kind of dismissed it thinking it was mind numbing soul crushing call work but before I dismissed it again I thought i would do a little digging. As I don’t actually know anyone working in recruitment irl I decided to ask here.

i don’t want to pursue this just because I am desperate for a job, but similarly I don’t want to dismiss it without doing my research. So here I am asking anyway

[Iskaral Pust]

@HelenaExMachina I haven’t ever worked as a recruiter but, a random coincidence, I’ve been part of the interview team lately to hire a senior internal recruiter for our business.  The main candidates are currently working at recruiting specialty  firms.  

Some quick observations:

- the highest value recruiters have some direct experience in the industry so that they quickly recognize the nuance of what is needed for different roles.  Generic HR people don’t have this.  

- Plus the best candidates already have a broad network in the industry, and they have the ability to extend their network as they need.  Usually that means people who know them already trust them, and they’ve done a good job of staying in touch with people so that reaching out to someone feels sincere rather than transactional. 

- Good recruiters sincerely enjoy helping people find good jobs where they’ll succeed.  And they’re willing to give job seekers some time even when they don’t have a job opening for them.  That makes it an unpaid investment in good relationships.

- Our candidates seem pretty attracted by the stability (compensation and focus of their searches) of an in-house role rather than working on commission for a recruiting firm.  You should decide how you feel about that.

Beat of luck  

 

[Buckwheat]

I just found out that my first important real paid translation work was published ... but without my name on it. I covered a few chapters for another translator when they couldn't do it and wished my name to be included in the references. But now the book is published without it.

So that means I cannot use it as a reference, which was so important for me - it was my first paid translation and the first that is published in a book. And now my work is out there for people to see, published by a (big and established) publisher, but if somebody looks me up, they won't see that. And I cannot really include it on my CV.

Really disappointed right now.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Why not? Almost none of the work I do has my name on it (I'm an editor, not a writer), but I can use it in my portfolio just fine. 

[Knight of City of Bayonne]

3 hours ago, Buckwheat said:

I just found out that my first important real paid translation work was published ... but without my name on it. I covered a few chapters for another translator when they couldn't do it and wished my name to be included in the references. But now the book is published without it.

So that means I cannot use it as a reference, which was so important for me - it was my first paid translation and the first that is published in a book. And now my work is out there for people to see, published by a (big and established) publisher, but if somebody looks me up, they won't see that. And I cannot really include it on my CV.

Really disappointed right now.

Suggest that your CV reference state something along the lines of "Translated Chapters x,y, z in [name of publication] to expedite the work for the primary translator."  Retain any proof of your efforts in the event a potential client or employer asks for additional details. 

[Buckwheat]

7 hours ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

Why not? Almost none of the work I do has my name on it (I'm an editor, not a writer), but I can use it in my portfolio just fine. 

Well, it would be a bit odd if I list it somewhere and they decide to check that out and look up that publication, and find a completely different name (the original translator's) there.

3 hours ago, Ser Knight Somerville said:

Suggest that your CV reference state something along the lines of "Translated Chapters x,y, z in [name of publication] to expedite the work for the primary translator."  Retain any proof of your efforts in the event a potential client or employer asks for additional details. 

True, that is what I can do. I hope I can get some proof that is going to count for something.

[baxus]

I'm no expert on book translation but I'd say it's quite reasonable to think that more than one person is involved in translation process.

Imagine a single translator working on a 1000 pages book. It would take forever!

[Buckwheat]

10 minutes ago, baxus said:

I'm no expert on book translation but I'd say it's quite reasonable to think that more than one person is involved in translation process.

Imagine a single translator working on a 1000 pages book. It would take forever!

Yes ... but that is exactly how it is done generally. Especially with literature. (What I translated wasn't literature, but still.) Imagine a finished book that has different chapters translated in different styles. The end product would not be good to read.

[Eyelesbarrow]

Welllllll. After immigrating to another country (5 years ago!), getting my Master's, learning new skills (Python!), working for shit pay in order to learn said skills,  I have found myself in a proper job! It's in a consultancy that allows me to do some data analytics (and maybe more data science down the line). There is defo some future in it for me. The pay is pretty good and so are the benefits. It also allows me to stay in Berlin indefinitely, which is the most important thing. I only have a week in, but I am not spending so much energy worrying about the future, immigration, money, etc., which honestly, feels great.  

[HexMachina]

On 5/16/2018 at 1:30 AM, Iskaral Pust said:

@HelenaExMachina I haven’t ever worked as a recruiter but, a random coincidence, I’ve been part of the interview team lately to hire a senior internal recruiter for our business.  The main candidates are currently working at recruiting specialty  firms.  

Some quick observations:

- the highest value recruiters have some direct experience in the industry so that they quickly recognize the nuance of what is needed for different roles.  Generic HR people don’t have this.  

- Plus the best candidates already have a broad network in the industry, and they have the ability to extend their network as they need.  Usually that means people who know them already trust them, and they’ve done a good job of staying in touch with people so that reaching out to someone feels sincere rather than transactional. 

- Good recruiters sincerely enjoy helping people find good jobs where they’ll succeed.  And they’re willing to give job seekers some time even when they don’t have a job opening for them.  That makes it an unpaid investment in good relationships.

- Our candidates seem pretty attracted by the stability (compensation and focus of their searches) of an in-house role rather than working on commission for a recruiting firm.  You should decide how you feel about that.

Beat of luck  

 

Meant to respond the other day but it slipped my mind. 

Anyway, thanks for your advice. I decided there was nothing to lose by applying at least. I cleared the initial phone interviews with three firms, and had a face-to-face interview with one today which went...okay-ish? Taking this one more as a learning experience than really expecting the job though, which is fine as it will allow me to perform better in my next interview on Monday. Again, thanks for the advice! Based on the role play aspect of the interview I think this might be a role I would enjoy