Job seeking stress

[OrdinaryJoe]

First of all, I now empathize hugely with people that are looking for work. I am in, I know, a desirable position in that I am already employed in a decent job and can stay where I am just fine. However, a position opened up locally that I am interested in and I know people that work for that company and have said good things, so for the only 3rd time in 14 years, I sent out my resume.

 

Phone screen, interview with the VP have occurred and all went reasonably well, I suppose. Of course, you can never really tell. They are in the process right now of doing my criminal background check and reference checking. It is with the later that I am feeling some frustration. But, being so green in the job seeking market I'm not sure if I should or not. The crux seems to be that that they appear frustrated that I haven't provided them with a direct supervisor as a reference. My issue is that I am still employed by my current company and if this new company doesn't pan out, I will remain employed there. While the current company likely wouldn't act openly punitive if they knew I was looking elsewhere, I think the knowledge may affect things like future opportunities or the way that compensation increase money is dispersed. Basically, I think the prospective company is out of line for feeling frustrated at not having access to a direct supervisor.

 

I purposefully didn't include previous supervisors because 1) I've had my current supervisors for 4 years and 2) the one before this one was not someone I would want to use as a reference. While we managed a decent, professional relationship, I know that we didn't really have much respect or like for each other. He was ultimately demoted and removed from the position. So, in order to provide a direct supervisor connection for this prospective employer, I would need to link them with someone from 8 years ago and I'm not sure how relevant that is. I was in a lower position then and not one equal to the position I am in now nor the one I have applied for.

 

I have provided references from my current employer. These are people, not in my own department but people that I have a great deal of business interaction with, that I feel I can trust with the information that I am looking elsewhere. These people I know have all provided me stellar references. But that isn't enough for this employer and it's kinda irking me. Also, I don't know that I have seen a company put so much weight in references before. I have done quite a bit of hiring myself and frankly have always considered reference checking a necessary step but largely a waste of time. I mean, the process itself has critical flaws in it. The candidate tells you who to call and you call them. They're going to feed you the people that will paint the best picture of them so it's not like you really get a very objective view from reference checking. The whole thing has me scratching my head a bit.

 

Anyway, I'd love to hear different perspectives. Am I just out of touch with current job seeking realities? What do you do when there is a gap in references such as mine - a reference that was a former supervisor?

[+ purplekow]

If you have already informed the new company that you do no want to jeopardize your current job by asking for references unless the process is likely to result in an offer, they should be understanding of that. if they insist, I would certainly look at that as a negative as far as wanting to work there. I would likely offer to have my supervisor give a recommendation before a final decision is made but would expect that their decision would be made based on the information I supplied and that the supervisor's recommendation would serve as a final confirmation of my abilities.

I have not interviewed in years, but I do hire people and the current supervisor's recommendation is always a double edged sword. A recommendation that is less than stellar may be a supervisor's way of trying to hold onto a valuable asset. A strong recommendation may have other motivations, such as a strong sell to get a difficult employee out of the company in an amiable manner.

I think your concern about their insistence is appropriate.

[jawjateck]

I agree with PK...this company's lack of discretion about your current employment situation is a preliminary indicator to you of trouble to come. You have provided them with all the information you wish, and based on that information, they must make a decision about your suitability for the job. I have never placed extra significance on the recommendation of someone's current supervisor.

 

I agree that references are generally a waste of time; however, on a few occasions, when hiring someone to help in my business, I have asked one of the listed references to provide me a secondary contact who knows the prospective candidate. Those secondary references have often provided a more realistic assessment of the person under consideration. Of course, I always have him/her sign a statement authorizing to me to check with anyone who has knowledge of this person, not just the names he/she provides.

[seeker630]

I agree that if they are infelxible on this, it's not a good sign. My last employer had a corporate policy that no one was to provide a reference (although people would sometimes do it 'off the books'.)

[bigvalboy]

OJ, just wanted to add my two cents. All of the advice thus far is excellent I think. While I personally have not been in that situation, I do have a close friend that went through the very same thing. She interviewed, gave references, and at each interview she kept seeing people farther up in company. When the CEO wanted to see her, he assured her that the job was hers if she wanted it and they would like her to start immediately.

 

She gave notice at her old job and took two weeks off to start the relocation process. On Monday of the day she was to start the new job, she received a phone call from the new company at 8 AM saying simply that 1.) Govt funding was still pending and that 2.) over the last week a new CEO was now running the company and he had decided to freeze all hiring. She was now without any job. These were to be clear, extremely lucrative positions. Over the past several months, she had to retain legal council to try and resolve this issue. Her old company refused to take her back and the new company would not hire her.

 

This may or may not be a concern of yours, but while reading your account of things, this story came to mind, and I just felt compelled to relate it to you. In my book, in any given situation, information is power. Best of luck in this situation...BVB

[JT Brooklyn]

I'm thinking keep your butt right where it is! You know what you have stability wise in this screwy Economy!

[OneFinger]

...My last employer had a corporate policy that no one was to provide a reference (although people would sometimes do it 'off the books'.)

I've only worked for 3 different companies in the last 15 years. But, all had a similar policy and I couldn't provide a reference even if I wanted to. One company even had a policy that they would ONLY confirm dates of employment. They would never give out any other information.

 

And, another problem with references is that it's not always clear what is being said. For example, take the statement "I can't say enough good about them." Does that mean you have so many good qualities that they don't know where to start explaining them? Or, does it mean there's nothing good to say about you?

 

It's been my experience that companies rely more on the face-to-face interviews. It's not uncommon for you to interview with a group of people or meet one-on-one with several individuals. These people will probably have to fill out a form where they each give your a numerical score on several different criteria (communication skills, technical knowledge, work history, etc). These scores are then tabulated and compared with the narrative summary from each interviewer. The group then meets together, much like a jury, to deliberate about your qualifications. The group will then rank the interviewees and send their results to HR. The HR department will then do the background checks, credit checks, and possibly do searches on the internet, Facebook, and other social media sites to find out about you.

 

The whole process of finding a job can be a gut-wrenching ordeal.

 

Best of luck. And, remember, there is merit to staying where you're at. The grass isn't always greener on the other site.

[OrdinaryJoe]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts and feedback. Sometimes it's good to validate thoughts and that you're not crazy for thinking of an issue in a particular way. I thought I'd give an update (and provide the newest issue.)

 

The direct supervisor reference check issue proved to not be a deal-breaker as the company made an offer to me. Oddly enough, the verbal offer conversation began with yet another quick discussion about the reference checking. I suppose he felt he needed to reference the elephant clearly in the room over the last week and made some comment about how "I guess you didn't want to put us in touch with your direct supervisor because of how it may have affected you if you didn't get this job?" Note the question mark as it was clearly stated to get a response. By this time, I was a little pissed off so I responded by asking my own question of whether that is the standard that they experience in hiring, that people put them in touch with their current direct supervisors? He dodged the answer. Thankfully that conversation ended there and we moved onto the offer discussion.

 

So that brings to the next situation. The offer is good. Very good. Financially, bonus, time-off, benefits, pension. All of the elements are there and are between better and very much better than where I am currently. That, and despite the twerp in recruitment, I think it's a good company and the position excites me. I debated making a counter off to see if there was more money on the table and ultimately didn't as one - the position pays well above industry average and two - I spoke to someone I know at the company and they suggested that this VP wouldn't like a counter offer.

 

However, after talking to my Dad, who is a retired business exec, I did speak with this company about a guaranteed minimum severance clause to be built into the contract. The basis of this is that I currently have 14 years with my current employer. If anything were to happen that resulted in me being laid off, I would receive a very healthy severance package of 12-14 months. The way it was positioned to me, that security has been earned and should be transferable. A new company should respect that. So I discussed the situation with this prospective company and asked for a minimum guaranteed severance should separation occur without just cause. That is, if it's performance related or violation of policy then just cause exists. This would only apply in the event of a layoff or other non-culpable job loss.

 

The discussion didn't go well. The HR guy acted incredulous and said that in his 10 years in recruiting, he has never heard of such a thing. He kept coming back to performance and I again re-iterated that I already took that off the table and this was for non-just cause termination. I positioned it this way to him - if I join this new company and then in a year, they re-structure and I am without a position, then I will have been right royally screwed by coming over. So I am looking for what is basically an insurance clause. Benign in that if it is never used, it will never cost anyone anything. It wasn't a particularly easy discussion and the HR guy certainly made me feel like I was discussing a foreign language but he agreed to take it away and ask.

 

I heard back and, not surprisingly, they declined to include that in the offer. He stated that no one in the company has it so they can't offer it to me. I'm not sure I accept the reason but I couldn't challenge it. I was disappointed, particularly in that they didn't come back with anything at all. Not even, we can't do much but this is what we can do, etc. He asked me if this was a deal breaker and I said I need to take it away and decide that.

 

So this is where we sit now. A job offer that, while it was an bit of an interesting journey to get to, mostly excites me. But, the part that doesn't excite me is a fairly big thing for me.

 

Again, thoughts?

[+ purplekow]

We are missing information which is vital to giving an informed opinion. For example, how difficult is it to get a job in your field? How stable is the company which is doing the hiring? How close are you to retirement?

On the whole, if you are trying to bring a new policy to a well established company, you should not be surprised that it is being met with some resistance. Though I understand that there is no expense to the company unless you are let go for other than job performance issues, the company may be placed in a awkward situation with other employees by giving you a benefit others lack.

Making the benefit limited in time, perhaps to one or two years, may have been received in a more positive manner. Essentially this would be a termination clause which would require 1 year notice for termination which is not job performance related. Usually these type of termination clauses are much shorter in duration, 90 days or 120 days but there is not any reason why it could not extend beyond those periods.

To me, you seem reluctant to make the jump. Advancement in one's career achieved through changing companies is a well established technique in the business world. As with everything in business, there is always a risk to every benefit. Staying where you are is safe but not as lucrative. Safety is nice, but a rut is safe and the view from a cliff, even with the real but small danger of a slip, is exhilarating.

So safe rut or perilous perch. I go for the mountain view and hope there is even a more spectacular vista when you get to the too,