Fallacy

You want me smarter or dumber?

I’ve started thinking about the idea regarding dumbing one’s resume down. The idea behind this is for an individual to have a resume that employers wouldn’t see as being over qualified. I already have a personal pet peeve with the statement, “over qualified”. In my opinion, when I hear “over qualified” I immediately want to respond, “Then that means I am more than capable of handling the tasks of this position, so what’s the problem?” It is a poor, subjective reason to justify overlooking or deciding against an applicant, while providing no real reason for the decision. If I want to take and/or apply for a position that is a step or two lower then my skill set, shouldn’t that be my prerogative? And if it is, then why would anyone not consider someone simply on the basis of being more qualified for the position? I’m aware that many companies and hiring managers seem to have this belief that if they hire someone that is over qualified, then that means the individual is only using the job as a filler until they find another opportunity that is more complementary of their skill set. There’s also the second idea that the company believes they will have to pay more for the individual, but isn’t that part of what salary negotiating is about? I understand this line of thinking, but I also understand that it is not true in every case. When I apply for a position that I may be somewhat over qualified for, I’m actually looking at it as an opportunity to learn more in a specific area that the position addresses and use it as a means to enter a company to grow within. Isn’t this a fundamental idea behind career development and growth within a company?

When I look at my resume, I do not see how it is over qualified for any of the positions that I’ve applied for, but I have a heard a number of times now that this is the case. This has now led me to reconsider the content that is contained in my resume. The sad thing is that no one should actually have to consider revising their resume when it is correct in its representation and accurate with regard to their professional experience, and applicable for the job that they are applying to. This isn’t a stance against tailoring your resume so it more aptly reflects the job you’re pursuing, but simply the aspect of taking information from it or altering it in such a way that it makes you appear less qualified then you really are. It also seems to suggest a bit of a contradiction as to what employers really want. If it’s true that they want someone that is intelligent, capable, sound, driven, knowledgeable and experienced; then isn’t the idea surrounding dumbing one’s resume down a conflict in principle? And why should someone have to present themselves in a false manner in an effort to underplay their skill set, for an employer that is claiming to be looking for the best and brightest? Is it that they want the best and brightest liars?

I do not believe that anyone should have to under represent themselves in order to achieve what they are seeking, yet, I understand why people do it. I understand why people feel like they have to do it. It’s something that I am now grappling with and I don’t like it. I don’t want to under represent myself. I simply want a fair chance for what I am seeking. When people have been employed and have lied about their experience and certifications to gain the employment, only to be found out later to be fraudulent, they’re usually promptly fired, regardless of how well they may have performed the duties associated with their position. However, companies do not seem to have a problem with doing this exact same thing, but in reverse. If a person applies for a job and claims to have a masters degree and 15 years of experience, when they really only have an associates degree and 3 years of experience; while another person who may have a masters degree and 20 years of experience, but under represents their qualifications, then what really is the difference? Personally, I don’t believe there is anything different between someone who under represents and a person who over represents their self, because in both instances it’s a matter of spinning around the issue. I wonder if companies simply want to buy into the idea that applicants appear less qualified, while hoping that they are able to bring more to the table. Again, this is pure hypocrisy. If you want someone with more to offer then get the person who is offering more, rather then someone who feels forced into lowering their skill set in an effort to meet a level of standards that are not even being upheld. Standards. That’s what this is all about. Given all of this, I’m now at a conundrum where I either continue with my resume as it is and maintain my principals or “dumb it down”. It’s a decision that I am not happy with having to face, but the real decision that companies need to face is: Do you want your applicants smarter or dumber?

Feedback or opinions on the post? I’m all ears, share them here!

——-@ds

Thank You Letter

Handwritten or Email?

After my most recent interview, I started to sit down and write a thank you letter to the interviewer on one of my “thank you” cards that I purchased a while back. After realizing that my penmanship (when writing in a very small space) has taken a hit after all these years of sending emails, messaging, texting and etc… I began to wonder if sending out a hand written thank you card even matters any more. Is it even considered more meaningful then sending exactly what you are writing as an email?

By sending it as an email, it’s instantaneous and clear. There’s no issue of wondering if the writing is legible or coming across in a professional manner. You also do not have to worry if it was “lost in the mail” or shuffled into some indiscriminate pile at the employer’s office. In contrast, when sending a hand written letter, it’s more personal and shows that you took the time to think about the person. It also reflects that you’re willing to physically write out and mail your note to them. Yet, I still find that I spend the same amount of time thinking about what I am going to say, whether I am writing or emailing it. That part does not change. The difference for me is the time it takes to actually pen the note by hand and in my case the effort I went through to ensure it was professional looking.

To compensate for my penmanship and the fact that it was angling downward to the right side, I realized that when time and money permits, I need to go and involve myself in a penmanship class to correct this issue. I also had to use a ruler and a pencil to outline very faint lines to keep my writing straight. Further, in an effort to ensure my penmanship looked cleaner, I wrote out my note in pencil in a very light manner and then traced over that with the actual pen. Later, I used an eraser to remove all the pencil markings.

However, this attention to detail and care is not something that will be noticed by the employer. In an interview prior to this last one, I didn’t send out a thank you card, instead I sent out an email to the three people that interviewed me and I can tell you that I didn’t get a better or worse response with the emailed “thank you” letter vs. the handwritten attempt. So, the question still remains, does it really matter to mail out a handwritten “thank you” letter after an interview or is email a fully acceptable manner to send such a letter, with the exception of those niche people that may actually consider the hand written note a reflection on a person’s professionalism and quality?

——-@ds

Ouch: Oh and one other thing, I need to buy better pens cause my middle finger was destroyed after pressing so hard on the pen I was using to write with. Any high quality (and very comfortable), pen suggestions? :-p

Spouting 6: P90x

I’ve wanted to start working out for a while now, but just couldn’t get my mind in agreement with my desire. I haven’t weighed myself, which I know you should before you start working out, but let’s face it, I didn’t need another excuse not to start. A number of years ago I was part of an outdoor boot camp program and I loved it. It was great to be outside with others who shared the same desire; to lose weight and be fit. Although the fee for the boot camp program was very fair, it was still a stretch on my budget at the time. A couple of years after the boot camp, I started for a short time working out with co-workers, but that came to an end due to time constraints with everyone involved and life in general. Now that I am unemployed and am not making anywhere near the income I used to or back a couple of years ago, I decided to go with this P90x program. A friend no longer uses his P90x dvd’s, so he gave them to me. I’ve seen this infomercial a number of times on TV and the one thing that I liked about what it was advertising is that it talked quite extensively about not only maximizing your work outs, but also compensating for the plateau effect. The plateau effect (here are a few sources: Yahoo Answers and the Diet Blog’s 5 Ways to Break a Weight Loss Plateau to read more about the plateau effect and a third is my google search results on the term) is when your body gets used to the same work out pattern every day, such that it ceases to have an effect on your ability to lose weight over time. P90x compensates for this by changing the work out up over time. Now, I don’t want this blog to become a shill for advertising this system, I am only writing about why I decided to go with this program.

I’ve just completed day 3 of this (technically I didn’t do it yesterday, but I compensated in the day by doing something else. It probably wasn’t the best compensation, but I didn’t have the time) program and it is as crazy as it sounds. Everything is feeling all messed up, but in a good way. I’m about 5’7″ and I know I am over 280lbs. I think that I’m about 285lbs, but I am going to make sure at some point very soon. I’m happy to have finally started to work out. It’s something that I felt I should’ve started doing a while back. Now that I’ve been out of work, I wish I had started closer to around the time I was laid off, which was on October 15, 2008. I know that I should’ve started and I’ve blogged about that fact before in my Adrift post. No matter what, I’ve started now and I’m going to keep pushing myself to continue. I’ll chime in once in a while and blog about how well I am doing and will incorporate my changes in weight (hopefully that happens) at that time. One thing I’ve noticed about myself, is when I work out with people who are relying on me to show up and vice-versa, I’m more apt to working out. It’s almost like I need that dependency. The fight with in me right now is to figure out how to break that need and bring it back onto myself. So, while you can feel free to help keep me honest, I’ll be doing the same!

——-@ds

Spouting 5: D'oh!

Just making a minor post today. A couple of weeks ago, as many of you know and some probably didn’t know, I interviewed for a job with a local ad agency in Orlando, FL. The position was for a Client Services Manager and the interview went very well as it touched on all the major points that I was interested and/or concerned about. I felt that I represented myself very well. I was told that I would receive a call back by today. True to the owner’s word, I received that call and although I can not say that my search for my career is over, I can say that it was the most pleasant phone call one could receive when being turned down for a position. The owner was very kind in the reason why I wasn’t chosen and where most places really do not say anything or very little, I at least obtained beneficial information. I gave myself only three minutes to feel “down” about it (okay, maybe it was more like 5 minutes, and yes, for those that know me, this was a direct rip from the first episode of LOST), but I refused to let it shift my attitude from the positive experience I had with the interviews (the phone and face to face) and the follow-up phone call. I thanked the owner for the call back, stated that if anything changes or if the new hire doesn’t work out, that I would still be interested. I was told in kind that my resume and information would be kept and should anything come across in the future, I will be kept in mind. Although it is with regret that I didn’t earn the opportunity, this has not stopped me from my quest of running without condition. I will continue my career search and looking for the next best chance to “jumpstart my career“. 

I also tend to look at this in another way. While it is true that I am out of the running for this position and that 1-3 other people are still vying for the opportunity (to whom I wish them well); once one of those three obtain the position, that will be one less person for me to compete with for the next career opportunity, even though I would have preferred being the one chosen for the position. So I shall persist onward. I think it is far too easy for one to feel down (even hurt) about losing out on a great opportunity. Not only the opportunity to end the almost 8-month unemployment status that I’ve had (with many people being out of work even longer), but also the opportunity to have a fresh start. It’s much harder to maintain a positive attitude, accept the loss, firm up and commit yourself to moving forward; without any regrets. For me, it’s all I really have. I can either sulk or I can be proactive. I choose the latter.

——-@ds

Disclaimer?

Warning: What you’re about to read has a blog disclaimer

On Saturday, May 16th, 2009, I went and seen the movie Angels and Demons. Personally, I thought this movie was a much better attempt at Dan Brown’s book, then the previous Howard/Hanks movie The Da Vinci Code. This post today, however, is not about the movie, but it is about the absurdity of disclaimer statements. As the trailers for this movie began to play, one of the trailers that was shown was Public Enemies, starring Johnny Depp. Right before this movie started, there was the familiar green movie disclaimer statement that pops up before each and every trailer. What was inherently absurd, in my view, was the fact that its disclaimer had a line in there that noted that this movie contained “gangster violence“. As I looked at this statement for the few seconds it was on the screen, I couldn’t help but think how silly that statement is. As if there is a distinction between violence and gangster violence. If a movie has a guy running down the street who is looking to murder people, but is not in a gang, and shoots people down, how is that intrinsically different then a gangster using a gun to shoot people down? There is no difference. So, why does such a distinctive description need to be made?

I started to think how we’ve become a society of disclaimers. Everything we read, watch and use has a disclaimer. It’s as if someone out there knows that something is not right, but to compensate for having done it anyway, they slap a disclaimer on it to “make it OK”. I’m sure much of this has to do with legal issues, because companies do not want to be sued for someone who didn’t read that a movie was rated R vs. PG-13 and decided to see the movie or allow their kids to see the movie. However, I place that blame on the party for not being personally responsible and paying attention to the rating system. With that being said, if I am going to a movie like Public Enemies, Transformers, Star Trek and Batman; do I really need to be told that there is violence in the film? Isn’t that part of what we call the action of a movie any way and isn’t it part of the reason we go to see the film in the first place? In other words, when I go and see a Jet Li film, I’m not going to see or expect really great acting. I’m going to see what new Martial Art move he uses to beat someone up and take them out. If we’re going to have a disclaimer for Public Enemies called gangster violence, then shouldn’t we have a disclaimer for Transformers called robotic violence, another for Star Trek called space violence and lastly, for Batman called (I don’t know what to call this, maybe…) Bat-violence? And speaking of Jet Li, along with other Martial Artists, their disclaimer should be called martial arts violence or maybe ass-kicking violence (but then we’d have to have a disclaimer for the disclaimer, because we used the word “ass” to describe the violence and that word is profane). I realize that my blog is not going to do away with the inundation of disclaimers, but can we at least agree to reconsider the absurd descriptions contained within them?

——-@ds