Why I Won’t Hire You

Hi Charlie.

I'm not going to call you names or comment on the tone and message of your article, other than to say it inspired me to write an article based on yours. My thoughts are contained within my article. I think any writing or speech that makes one react in a positive or...negative way is doing its job, as long as it contains some truth. I guess in this sense you have accomplished your mission. Keep writing and ignore the readers who "can't handle the truth."

Bob

I think the problem is that most interviewers think this way. Its as if, when being interviewed, the job of the interviewer is to find any possible reason (however small) to not hire you. There has to be a better way to go about weeding out the good apples from the bad and even so, bad apples need a job too. Its a no wonder unemployment is so high now-a-days. : /

Interviews are tough, getting an interview is tougher, so my take on your post is truthful, honest and forthright. Once you get in the top 10 resumes selected, being prepared to answer the tough questions is key. Charlie B. has given an honest and truthful look into what it takes to pass the test. I've worked for major corporations and found internal promotion hiring is even tougher than coming from outside the company. Three interviews are common for an internal promotion interview or even lateral move. One with the human resources manager -- pass that one, move to the department manager, pass that one, move to a panel of 3 or more. Its exhausting but its the way of the world now. I had a position as administrative specialist where I had to create "rejection letters" for all the resumes rejected. I mailed over 300 per day! It was date entry for merge documents but occasionally I would glance at the resumes to see why the person was rejected. The main thing I realized is that the mere number of applicants for a position is overwhelming for a recruiter to peruse so you have to stand out in the resume submitted! Charlie B is telling you what its about from his viewpoint and I completely understand from my viewpoint. I've been applying for a new job for more than two years. I've gotten two interviews! One interview I was granted was with a panel of 4 executives for the very first interview. After hearing them in the interview, I decided then and there that this was not a position or company I wanted and I told them so. I think they were very interested in my skills and my most recent position being most relevant to the open position they offered but, I wasn't interested in the same position or relevance....thus my search for a NEW job so I let them know...thanks but no thanks. Take it or leave it.

Well looks like this man could use a career change . Not because he is not good£. But because he is dull about his work and acts with a lot of cliche.

Most people complaining here have probably never had to recruit team members, and are probably those you don't want on your team. I love this post. I can relate to almost all of it. And for all the folks complaining, if you can master dealing with someone like this in the job process, you probably have what it takes to go pretty far anyway. Don't tone it down.

I appreciate your honesty, and agree with almost everything you have said. I am an advisor and a career counselor at a SUNY school in New York, and I often find that I am telling my students things that you mention in your blog. I am re-posting this blog. I believe it is more important to be honest, than to sugarcoat the message you are trying to get across- then the interviewee will never learn.

^also to add to the above, it seems like most of the people who are negatively posting are probably insecure about their own deficiency in knowledge about how cut-throat the job market is, and are frustrated with the job search process... Which makes a lot of sense. But what you write is really how it is, and people should play by those rules.... even if they are interviewing with an employer who is "nice." They (the employer), still has specific expectations, and they will be more apt to hire if one exceeds those expectations.

I thought this article did a good job of getting the point across - before you send a resume you should know why you want to work there and what value you will bring to the company. Well, duh. Most of the anonymous comments here appear to come from people with far too much free time on their hands. I wonder how many resumes they've sent out to companies they know nothing about....

I have read dozens upon dozens of articles about what to do, and what not to do in an interview. It has been very time consuming, and mostly a waste. Most articles are pretty much the same. They tell you to dress professionally, don't talk bad about past employers, be positive and sell yourself. Well, if all interviewers were as honest about what they are looking for, I might actually feel good about reading their articles. Thanks, I actually got some real, honest insight from your article.

Having sat on both sides of the table, I know that Mr Balmer is mostly correct. A shockingly high number of interviewees did no preparation beforehand. Why would I expect them to be more thorough once hired?

That said, Mr Balmer's tone implies a culture where subordinates are just that and easily disposable rather than partners in growing the business. The best organizations mix together people of different styles, and not just different colors. When only "perfect fits" are hired, organizations tend to become overly smug and myopic (e.g., Enron, LTCM).

So yes, applicants truly need to bring their "A" game, but companies also need to show they're looking for long-term hires and not just someone to use and dump. Unless that really is their culture.

As a Tech Manager for a major financial company, my org's approach is slightly different. We create a matrix based on the position. Then we scan each resume' for keywords that fit the description. Those resume's that fill all the keywords will probably be "green", those with most "yellow" and those resume's out of left field are "red". "Red" and possibly "Yellow" (depending on the # of applicants) will be immediately dropped. Then we analyze the resume's of our "green" candidates.

We try to rank those in some kind of meaningful order, then the interviewing starts.

Our baseline questions are used to "ferret out" those who overstate (or outright lie about) their skills. It doesn't take long. When the list is narrowed down to the top 10%, we have one more "deep-dive" interview.

To me, everything is important. Most who say a degree is irrelevant usually don't have one. Experience matters. Confidence, demeanor, and hygiene matter (nothing worse than a slob expecting a 100k paycheck). This may sound somewhat vague, but just as there is the "99+%" that won't be hired, there is the "1%-" candidate that has the job almost locked up before he steps in the door. To me, it's not a single measurable attribute, but a combination of both measurable and immeasurable attributes that wins.

Charlie, I see your point. I was ready to bash on your post upon my initial read. However, after reflection it's simply the tone that probably got most people upset. Thanks for the thought provoking post.

The great thing about this article is that you have highlighted exactly what happens when someone receives tonnes of CVs. You have to find some way of sifting through them because you do not have the time to spend trying to figure out what the writer is trying to convey.

It is the responsibility of the person applying for the job to grab the jobgiver's attention. If you have the skills, it should match with the skills asked for in the job advert. If the job is that important to you, you should have done your research about the company and about your own hopes for your career and future.

Your attitude and outlook reminds me of Ramit Sethi from http://www.iwillteachyoutoberich.com/blog/. He basically says that you, the person looking the job should do all the work so that the jobgiver will be pratically begging you to take the job.

Thanks for this no nonsense article. It may be harsh for some but it is the reality.

I think there are a couple of good points to take away from this article. The first is know what you want so your are passionate about it. That will come across in every avenue in life. If you're fresh out of school and don't know yet. Make something up in your head (grounded in reality) so you have a passion and vision.
Second realize guy's like this are out there. Some people think this way and others are the polar opposite. It's a game really. You have to be able to read the people you are trying to get past to talk to the people who have the need and will ultimately make the decision. Unless this person transferred from that division into this role. They'll have very little real knowledge about the position. That person wont be able to read between the lines so to speak to see how your experience pulls together to be competent in the role. This guy is screening personalty types and mindsets. I give him credit for being honest.

You're an asshole, glad I don't work for you.

Wow I am amazed how thin-skinned and thickheaded the people who took this post PERSONALLY. This is so scary because it shows how gullible people are and they should have their right to vote revoked.
With any company, an employer wants someone dedicated, trustworthy, somewhat flexible and with so many applicants and very little time, you have to weed through the BS and I am not talking about the degree!

Being short, to the point, puts the interviewee on the spot it says a lot about you really seeking the job with that employer and what you have to offer if you can respond to the blunt and to the point questions. To the people with the negative comments I won't be surprised if most of them are out of work for a pretty long time, because they are lost and they need to wake up to reality. It is a cruel world out there if your talents were worthy you should all be Steve Jobs and Bill Gates and I am sure both were hard asses when it comes down to rolling up their sleeves and turning ideas to thoughts to products that millions today are buying every day.

The truth hurts. Without pain, there can be little growth. This article is blunt and informative, and I will print this, so I can refer to it as I engage in my own job/career search.
It seems to me that someone who would sugarcoat the truth, making it more palatable for everyone, would help very few. On the other hand, those who care enough tell the truth no matter how it may hurt, stand to help the few who will endure the pain long enough to enact real change in their situations.
In a way, your writing reminds me of the no-nonsense style of Larry Winget, whose book Shut up, Stop Whining and Get a Life was a major influence and point of change in my life.
Thank you for this article. I will be using it to more clearly define my career change.

Thanks for the stark view of the realities in hiring. We don't see much material like it in "the literature" about getting employed. If you had fluffed it up and candy coated it, you could sell it as a book. I think you have served the community. I think those who complain most about it are those that could most benefit by taking your words to heart. Good job.

yes

You pompous ass. Lol

Funny, resumes with mistakes like "you're" instead of "your" or vice versa, do matter to me. It's not something I'd reject an entire resume/candidate over. But in a pinch, where i.e. 2 people are going head to head for a career opportunity with me, I'm going to select the one that knows better than to make such mistakes. It shows me at the very least that they either know the difference, and/or took the time to ask someone to proofread their resume for them, both of which are valuable. People that don't say these errors matter (even in an IM/chat context) are usually the same people that commit these types of errors. I've had debates with other people on this very topic. I remain unconvinced that these "petty" errors are unimportant, even in an email/blog context.