I'm confused what is being argued here. Networking is beneficial but can be abused when employers are idiots and don't properly check for credentials?
It really isn't super important to get the "best" candidate from the pool (as if such a thing is even possible to verify pre-hire). The only thing that is important is getting someone who is competent enough to do the job, and that could be every single person applying or none of them. Obviously, you would like to get the "best" candidate, but your company isn't going to sink or swim on getting the 2nd, 3rd, or Nth best person for the job (provided of course that the Nth is still competent to do said job).
The thing is, we like to believe in a meritocracy where the guy who has some sort of word-of-mouth "in" has an equal shot against the guy who does not, but nonetheless has similar credentials.
A lot of the time, yeah, favoring the slightly more known quantity is probably going to work out fine, and will no doubt save a whole lot of money from an HR perspective. I think the anxiety here is the ethical issue of every man and woman believing that if he or she works hard, she always has a chance, only to find that, like, the job posting was purely an attempt to conform to the state law's HR practices. I've seen this. In my final days at my old job I was informed of the serious bother involved in the pesky interview process, and how much it would help if I could just point to a guy who could easily replace me. That instinct makes perfect sense from a business standpoint, but it's potentially quite at odds with creating meaningful space for social mobility.
Until we are run solely by massive AI super-computers a la "I, Robot", pure meritocracy is essentially impossible. We aren't that rational and we don't have enough information to make that sort of call correctly anyway.
Until we are run solely by massive AI super-computers a la "I, Robot", pure meritocracy is essentially impossible. We aren't that rational and we don't have enough information to make that sort of call correctly anyway.
*Create Job Req*
"Team, we have an opening"
"I know someone that might be interested"
"Give me their resumé."
*interview*
*Hi 5*
1. Create job req
2. "Team, we have an opening"
...
3. Post opening to Careerbuilder/Monster*
4. Sift through unqualified applicants that can't read/don't care what the job is.
5. Take several calls from recruiters trying to get you to pay them to find candidates
6. Take the first dozen resumé's that you like and suspect aren't full of shit.
7. Have a meeting to discuss candidates with virtually identical resumés
8. Whittle that list down to five based on meritocratic superficial nonsense,such as this dude listed his Hish School GPA for some reason. That's weird.
9.Send five resumé's to HR
10. one guy can't make it to the interview. four people are interviewed. Of the four, one was obviously lying about everything on his resume except possibly his name. One was a complete dickbag, and two were bad fits
11. repeat steps 4-10. Sob.
Until we are run solely by massive AI super-computers a la "I, Robot", pure meritocracy is essentially impossible. We aren't that rational and we don't have enough information to make that sort of call correctly anyway.
*Create Job Req*
"Team, we have an opening"
"I know someone that might be interested"
"Give me their resumé."
*interview*
*Hi 5*
1. Create job req
2. "Team, we have an opening"
...
3. Post opening to Careerbuilder/Monster*
4. Sift through unqualified applicants that can't read/don't care what the job is.
5. Take several calls from recruiters trying to get you to pay them to find candidates
6. Take the first dozen resumé's that you like and suspect aren't full of shit.
7. Have a meeting to discuss candidates with virtually identical resumés
8. Whittle that list down to five based on meritocratic superficial nonsense,such as this dude listed his Hish School GPA for some reason. That's weird.
9.Send five resumé's to HR
10. one guy can't make it to the interview. four people are interviewed. Of the four, one was obviously lying about everything on his resume except possibly his name. One was a complete dickbag, and two were bad fits
11. repeat steps 4-10. Sob.
That's a great job you've done of exaggerating the faults of one side of the argument while completely disregarding the faults with your own. Really, bravo. I mean, I see the pros and cons of both sides here but god damn, that is one strawmanny post you've written here.
Casual on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
edited April 2012
That's a great job you've done of exaggerating the faults of one side of the argument while completely disregarding the faults with your own.
This isn't a rebuttal. Maybe you meant to post argument.jpg
Also, none of that was an exaggeration. As a hiring manager,
No I wanted the slow clap. And I don't think the glaring faults with what you just said need to be repeated again on the same page. Like I said there are pros and cons to networking without a doubt, but claiming it's a flawless and perfect system with no downsides which screws no one is blatantly false in such obvious ways I won't waste internet space repeating them.
I feel for you guys. Born in '77. When I was hired into my first real job in 2000, I was the young guy. Now I'm 34 ... and I'm still the young guy. This company simply does not hire and train any new talent. I have begged my boss to hire a kid and sit him next to me so I can teach him everything I know. I've even interviewed candidates, but they never get hired. Except H1Bs. Apparently we have positions that no American can fill, despite widespread youth unemployment. I was incredulous when I saw that notice in the breakroom.
Where I'm having trouble is in treating networking as an actual employment system instead of something people just sorta do to get an edge. How do you go about fixing the faults in this "system"?
claiming it's a flawless and perfect system with no downsides which screws no one is blatantly false in such obvious ways I won't waste internet space repeating them.
and you were just complaining about strawmen?
Really, dude?
I wasn't intending to suggest that happened every time for every posting. Also, if you think you have something to add to the conversation and you're linking an uninspired meme jpg, you're probably wrong.
I'm confused what is being argued here. Networking is beneficial but can be abused when employers are idiots and don't properly check for credentials?
It really isn't super important to get the "best" candidate from the pool (as if such a thing is even possible to verify pre-hire). The only thing that is important is getting someone who is competent enough to do the job, and that could be every single person applying or none of them. Obviously, you would like to get the "best" candidate, but your company isn't going to sink or swim on getting the 2nd, 3rd, or Nth best person for the job (provided of course that the Nth is still competent to do said job).
This. In my experience you get to the interview stag if they THINK you can do the job, and the interview is to convince them that your resume was not bullshit and you actually can. However, if there's a pool of four or fifty who you're convinced can all do the job, usually you'll hire whoever 'fits' best - including the folks you're familiar with.
Incidentally, this is why 'entry level jobs' can seem impossible to get in virtually any industry in major cities that crank out new college graduates - the are a FUCKLOAD of people who can do that work, and that's not even including the folks who want to make a lateral move 2-3 years in because their current employer isn't offering advancement opportunist, etc.
Honestly if you know what mind of entry level job you want and are able to clear that 'capable of doing the work' bar on your resume, I'd start keeping an eye out for openings in rural and economically disadvantaged areas; think 'places where they'll pay for your med school if you agree to work in a clinic ther for 10 years'. Those places don't just need doctors - they need everything, because no young college educated professionals ever go there. They don't need by many of them, but they do need them, and it's like going back in time by a few decades - I moved from an area where nearly 50% of the population had at least a bachelors to an area where around 17% do, and most of those are established professionals. Suddenly a 'useless' generic BA ain't so useless.
Personally, I found a HUGE difference in applying for entry level jobs in that kind of area; it basically goes from "yeah, you could do the job. I'll toss your app in the stack with all the others I guess" to "holy shit, you're qualified? When can you start?"
claiming it's a flawless and perfect system with no downsides which screws no one is blatantly false in such obvious ways I won't waste internet space repeating them.
and you were just complaining about strawmen?
Really, dude?
I wasn't intending to suggest that happened every time for every posting. Also, if you think you have something to add to the conversation and you're linking an uninspired meme jpg, you're probably wrong.
Saying a strawman is a strawman... is a strawman? Well shit, it's strawmen all the way down. And for the record no, you did not make that post with the qualifier "this happens one time in ten or one time in twenty", you just made a post saying "this is an example of using networking to hire someone vs an example of not using networking to hire someone". I think even you can admit you used the ideal outcome for the networking and the worst case scenario for merit. That's what I was pointing out and that's what you did. You can semantics this thread into the ground if you like but it won't change that simple fact.
The joke is I'm not even one of the people saying networking is 100% bad. I just took issue with it being portraid as if it's never used to hire deadweight because "hey, he's the bosses nephew".
I'm confused what is being argued here. Networking is beneficial but can be abused when employers are idiots and don't properly check for credentials?
It really isn't super important to get the "best" candidate from the pool (as if such a thing is even possible to verify pre-hire). The only thing that is important is getting someone who is competent enough to do the job, and that could be every single person applying or none of them. Obviously, you would like to get the "best" candidate, but your company isn't going to sink or swim on getting the 2nd, 3rd, or Nth best person for the job (provided of course that the Nth is still competent to do said job).
This. In my experience you get to the interview stag if they THINK you can do the job, and the interview is to convince them that your resume was not bullshit and you actually can. However, if there's a pool of four or fifty who you're convinced can all do the job, usually you'll hire whoever 'fits' best - including the folks you're familiar with.
Incidentally, this is why 'entry level jobs' can seem impossible to get in virtually any industry in major cities that crank out new college graduates - the are a FUCKLOAD of people who can do that work, and that's not even including the folks who want to make a lateral move 2-3 years in because their current employer isn't offering advancement opportunist, etc.
Honestly if you know what mind of entry level job you want and are able to clear that 'capable of doing the work' bar on your resume, I'd start keeping an eye out for openings in rural and economically disadvantaged areas; think 'places where they'll pay for your med school if you agree to work in a clinic ther for 10 years'. Those
Laces don't just need doctors - they need everything, because no young college educated professionals ever go there. They don't need by many of them, but they do need them. I found a HUGE difference in applying for entry level jobs in that kind of area; it basically goes from "yeah, you could do the job. I'll toss your app in the stack with all the others" to "holy shit, you're qualified?[/] When can you start?"
This is very good advice if you can actually do it (many can't due to family concerns etc) If you are willing to move, and to look at 'odd' areas of the country there can be a lot more opportunities in your field than in the town near your college. Yes, perhaps Denver has 90% of the jobs in field X and you love living there but it also probably has 99% of the skilled people. That other 10% of jobs is out there clamoring for people who can do the work and are willing to live in South Dakota or whatever.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
edited April 2012
Constructing my argument the way you did made it a strawman. Pointing out examples of two different case flows isn't "strawmanning". Back away from the 'clever' images and logical falacies 101.
To put it in plain terms, they were examples. Hiring is the worst. The absolute worst. Everything about hiring is terrible. That isn't even the worst case example I can come up with re: hiring a pubbie. That's just what typically happens.
Having someone in-house vouch for someone outside is usually a good thing. Some managers like Cpt's are retarded and hire terrible people. Sometimes people put their friends in and they fail the drug test and it causes a shitton of embarassment all around. Sometimes randos interview really well, but they don't know dick.
And the bosses nephew thing? That's nepotism, not networking. Nepotism is generally considered a bad thing. My point at the start of this is that nepotism and networking are not the same thing. Networking certainly isn't a form of nepotism. And nepotism isn't really even really a form of networking.
Constructing my argument the way you did made it a strawman. Pointing out examples of two different case flows isn't "strawmanning". Back away from the 'clever' images and logical falacies 101.
To put it in plain terms, they were examples. Hiring is the worst. The absolute worst. Everything about hiring is terrible. That isn't even the worst case example I can come up with re: hiring a pubbie. That's just what typically happens.
Having someone in-house vouch for someone outside is usually a good thing. Some managers like Cpt's are retarded and hire terrible people. Sometimes people put their friends in and they fail the drug test and it causes a shitton of embarassment all around. Sometimes randos interview really well, but they don't know dick.
And the bosses nephew thing? That's nepotism, not networking. Nepotism is generally considered a bad thing. My point at the start of this is that nepotism and networking are not the same thing. Networking certainly isn't a form of nepotism. And nepotism isn't really even really a form of networking.
I'd say there is a definate overlap between nepotism and networking. Their Venn diagrams are at least linked. If Candidate A calls his uncle, looking for a job for which he is qualified, and his uncle recommends him for the position then it's still networking. If however another person at the same level in the company recommends an identical candidate who is a business assosciate and the company hires the nephew then it's both nepotism AND networking since the initial move was networking (the person was qualified for the position) and the refusal of the second candidate was due to nepotism (the closer relationship was favored for no reason beyond that)
Companies love networking and nepotism, with networking being best but even elements of nepotism being better than just casting out a random net. Both create accountability within the firm with respect to the new hire, and increase the information advantage the company possesses over the new hire. Both favor the well connected individual over the equally competent new entry to the field. It's why you should never neglect a potential contact or refuse a request from someone for help/advice in getting a position. You never know when they will be able to return the favor. You can do the same to an extent at college too, remember that even new hires can recommend other new hires. The moment you walk in the door your opinion on other hires increases in importance a hundred fold.
Or maybe you guys just aren't very good at it and think that's it's some sort of unfair advantage and/or magic.
Vegging out in front of the TV after work is a helluva lot easier than going to an professional/alumni thing, but you aren't going to make any acquaintainces watching big bang theory reruns.
"making friends" <> "being born on third base"
Deebaser, you seem very confused.
You've decided people who point out networking is nepotism must obviously just be jealous they can't network. For ... no reason whatsoever.
The "your just jealous" argument is stupid in any context. That includes this one. It's avoiding the argument because you don't have a rebuttal.
I'm basing it on your arrogant ignorance. You don't know the difference between 'networking' and 'nepotism' and continue to insist that there must not be one. Afterall, the actual definitions of words are just like, opinions, man.
My company has an anti-nepotism policy, wherein HR will not allow a family member of a current employee to be hired. They shouldn't have to rename the policy because you and a few other people misuse a word you don't know. At the same time they have an employee referral plan wherein they give you cash money if you recommend a friend or professional acquaintance for a job.
You and Inj are basically insisting that having social skills is such bullshit and that it's no different than your dad just GIVING you a job. This suggests that you value technical skills and credentialing over social skills. I'm not suggestting you're 'jelly', just that you are favoring your strengths and dismissing the skills that you are lacking in.
Nepotism <> Networking
One is a skill, the other is a birthright. Full stop.
Maybe you're confusing "networking" for "cronyism", but those are also completely different things. The fact that you use the word incorrectly does not mean that it means something else. It just means you're using the word wrong.
Networking is a form of cronyism. That's the fucking point of networking.
It's like you don't understand at all how networking works. The whole purpose is to make connections so that they think of you first or think better of you, rather then someone else when a position or something of the like comes up.
The whole purpose of networking is to advance yourself via personal connections. Nepotism is the same thing, just for a specific type of personal connection. There is no meaningful difference between hiring someone because he's your cousin and hiring someone because he's your friend. It's a distinction without a difference.
And none of this has anything to do with the fact that you threw out a shit "your just jealous" argument because you had no rebuttal. It's still pathetic.
Constructing my argument the way you did made it a strawman. Pointing out examples of two different case flows isn't "strawmanning". Back away from the 'clever' images and logical falacies 101.
To put it in plain terms, they were examples. Hiring is the worst. The absolute worst. Everything about hiring is terrible. That isn't even the worst case example I can come up with re: hiring a pubbie. That's just what typically happens.
Having someone in-house vouch for someone outside is usually a good thing. Some managers like Cpt's are retarded and hire terrible people. Sometimes people put their friends in and they fail the drug test and it causes a shitton of embarassment all around. Sometimes randos interview really well, but they don't know dick.
And the bosses nephew thing? That's nepotism, not networking. Nepotism is generally considered a bad thing. My point at the start of this is that nepotism and networking are not the same thing. Networking certainly isn't a form of nepotism. And nepotism isn't really even really a form of networking.
I don't think anyone is saying you're wrong about the advantages of hiring via nepotism/cronyism, Deebaser.
I mean, I totally get why people do it; shit, I got my job that way. That doesn't make it fair, but I've gotta eat.
Or maybe you guys just aren't very good at it and think that's it's some sort of unfair advantage and/or magic.
Vegging out in front of the TV after work is a helluva lot easier than going to an professional/alumni thing, but you aren't going to make any acquaintainces watching big bang theory reruns.
"making friends" <> "being born on third base"
This is really sounding like the typical "I got this far because I work hard, which is to imply that you don't" Deeb, which is really condescending and kind of dickish. See also: #5.
Or maybe you guys just aren't very good at it and think that's it's some sort of unfair advantage and/or magic.
Vegging out in front of the TV after work is a helluva lot easier than going to an professional/alumni thing, but you aren't going to make any acquaintainces watching big bang theory reruns.
"making friends" <> "being born on third base"
Deebaser, you seem very confused.
You've decided people who point out networking is nepotism must obviously just be jealous they can't network. For ... no reason whatsoever.
The "your just jealous" argument is stupid in any context. That includes this one. It's avoiding the argument because you don't have a rebuttal.
I'm basing it on your arrogant ignorance. You don't know the difference between 'networking' and 'nepotism' and continue to insist that there must not be one. Afterall, the actual definitions of words are just like, opinions, man.
My company has an anti-nepotism policy, wherein HR will not allow a family member of a current employee to be hired. They shouldn't have to rename the policy because you and a few other people misuse a word you don't know. At the same time they have an employee referral plan wherein they give you cash money if you recommend a friend or professional acquaintance for a job.
You and Inj are basically insisting that having social skills is such bullshit and that it's no different than your dad just GIVING you a job. This suggests that you value technical skills and credentialing over social skills. I'm not suggestting you're 'jelly', just that you are favoring your strengths and dismissing the skills that you are lacking in.
Nepotism <> Networking
One is a skill, the other is a birthright. Full stop.
Maybe you're confusing "networking" for "cronyism", but those are also completely different things. The fact that you use the word incorrectly does not mean that it means something else. It just means you're using the word wrong.
Networking is a form of cronyism. That's the fucking point of networking.
It's like you don't understand at all how networking works. The whole purpose is to make connections so that they think of you first or think better of you, rather then someone else when a position or something of the like comes up.
The whole purpose of networking is to advance yourself via personal connections. Nepotism is the same thing, just for a specific type of personal connection. There is no meaningful difference between hiring someone because he's your cousin and hiring someone because he's your friend. It's a distinction without a difference.
And none of this has anything to do with the fact that you threw out a shit "your just jealous" argument because you had no rebuttal. It's still pathetic.
Networking = Making people aware of you based on your skills and trust you based on your personal connection to someone they trust
Nepotism = Making people aware of you based on simply your personal connection to someone in the firm and rewarding you simply for that personal connection
Nepotism is very like networking, but it's not the same. They can be based on each other, but they don't have to be. Trust is an important thing to companies, and your resume can't really show that you are someone they can rely on. The testimony of someone in the firm, and their mutual accountability should that trust be breached, is much better.
Or maybe you guys just aren't very good at it and think that's it's some sort of unfair advantage and/or magic.
Vegging out in front of the TV after work is a helluva lot easier than going to an professional/alumni thing, but you aren't going to make any acquaintainces watching big bang theory reruns.
"making friends" <> "being born on third base"
This is really sounding like the typical "I got this far because I work hard, which is to imply that you don't" Deeb, which is really condescending and kind of dickish. See also: #5.
I don't know that I agree with this sentiment. Would you have a problem with me going to get a bullshit certification to pad my resume so that I'm the guy they pick? How is that any different than using contacts to get a bump? Neither has much bearing on my ability to do the job. Their sole purpose is to get me in the door.
At what point does using everything at your disposal to set yourself apart from the pack become a bad thing (beyond the obvious problem of using it to get a job you aren't qualified to do)?
I'm wondering when we'll finally see something give on some of these unfair business practices. I'd like to think that the whole "we're going to save money and make obscene profits by relying on unpaid interns" thing would eventually get beat down after enough people get fucked over by it.
On that note, I'm also wondering when they look into some of the unscrupulous practices that corporations are creating in regards to temp hires. "Guess we have to actually pay someone for this. I know let's grab a temp person, hold them for as long as the temp agency lets us, then hire them on the full probation period before letting them go."
I'm not even going to touch on the BS involved with H1Bs and that some expect you to let them see your facebook profile because they are too fucking lazy to do their own screening.
Generally a certification means you educated yourself.
Networking means you can hold your liquor.
Such as me going back and doing every cisco or microsoft cert for skills I already have in spades and are readily identifiable on my resume from past work experience. They won't make me any more knowledgeable in those areas than I already am, but they sure will look pretty on my resume.
And the notion that networking is ONLY about going out drinking with people is the thing that bothers me about this conversation. It is completely mis-characterizing the majority of networking that takes place.
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
edited April 2012
Shryke,
Nepotism and Cronyism are rather specific forms of favoritism. Networking is a form of marketing. Maybe you came into this thread not knowing that (and that's cool), but I'm sure you've google searched by now and realize that "nepotism" is not a synonym for "networking", which was the original controversy.
Networking is something you can actively do, it's not just sitting around hoping your old college buddy hits it big or begging Uncle Bob for a job at his dealership. I wasn't suggesting that you were "jealous", I was suggesting that the people that the people that thought networking = nepotism, don't have a good understanding of how it works.
Instead of dismissing the concept of networking or taking personal offense, you'd probably be better served learning how to use it as a tool. Pick up a copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People. It's a great book. Professional contacts don't appear out of the ether, you have to go out and meet people. If you do that you're in a much better position than simply submitting your resume and praying for a response.
Generally a certification means you educated yourself.
Networking means you can hold your liquor.
Such as me going back and doing every cisco or microsoft cert for skills I already have in spades and are readily identifiable on my resume from past work experience. They won't make me any more knowledgeable in those areas than I already am, but they sure will look pretty on my resume.
Generally a certification means you educated yourself.
Networking means you can hold your liquor.
Such as me going back and doing every cisco or microsoft cert for skills I already have in spades and are readily identifiable on my resume from past work experience. They won't make me any more knowledgeable in those areas than I already am, but they sure will look pretty on my resume.
That's not bullshit, that's redundancy and proof.
It's bullshit from the point of view of it not making me better able to do the job I'm applying for. It just seems like we are saying you can put a bunch of effort into getting hired by using these skills but not those skills. Those skills are bad.
edit: and I would argue that the recommendation I received also constitutes a form of proof. Someone is vouching for my ability to do the job.
Generally a certification means you educated yourself.
Networking means you can hold your liquor.
Such as me going back and doing every cisco or microsoft cert for skills I already have in spades and are readily identifiable on my resume from past work experience. They won't make me any more knowledgeable in those areas than I already am, but they sure will look pretty on my resume.
I really want my Project Management Professional cert so bad. If only for the week i would add ", PMP" to my email sig.
Generally a certification means you educated yourself.
Networking means you can hold your liquor.
Such as me going back and doing every cisco or microsoft cert for skills I already have in spades and are readily identifiable on my resume from past work experience. They won't make me any more knowledgeable in those areas than I already am, but they sure will look pretty on my resume.
That's not bullshit, that's redundancy and proof.
It's bullshit from the point of view of it not making me better able to do the job I'm applying for. It just seems like we are saying you can put a bunch of effort into getting hired by using these skills but not those skills. Those skills are bad.
edit: and I would argue that the recommendation I received also constitutes a form of proof. Someone is vouching for my ability to do the job.
Credentialing versus favouritism. They are both relatively bullshit, but only one of them is generally open to the multitudes.
I'm wondering when we'll finally see something give on some of these unfair business practices. I'd like to think that the whole "we're going to save money and make obscene profits by relying on unpaid interns" thing would eventually get beat down after enough people get fucked over by it.
On that note, I'm also wondering when they look into some of the unscrupulous practices that corporations are creating in regards to temp hires. "Guess we have to actually pay someone for this. I know let's grab a temp person, hold them for as long as the temp agency lets us, then hire them on the full probation period before letting them go."
I'm not even going to touch on the BS involved with H1Bs and that some expect you to let them see your facebook profile because they are too fucking lazy to do their own screening.
Hopefully DOJ will eventually start to harshly enforce labour laws, but I'm not going to hold my breath for too long. On the one hand it's a pretty massive subsidy that benefits shareholders and executives. On the other hand it easily falls prey to the same mindset as hazing. I had to suffer through semesters of getting people coffee for free, why should these new assholes get to avoid the pain when I didn't. Eventually something is going to have to give just due to demographics and economic reality for 20 somethings, but I just can't really imagine how its going to end. Other than badly.
Nepotism and Cronyism are rather specific forms of favoritism. Networking is a form of marketing. Maybe you came into this thread not knowing that (and that's cool), but I'm sure you've google searched by now and realize that "nepotism" is not a synonym for "networking", which was the original controversy.
Networking is something you can actively do, it's not just sitting around hoping your old college buddy hits it big or begging Uncle Bob for a job at his dealership. I wasn't suggesting that you were "jealous", I was suggesting that the people that the people that thought networking = nepotism, don't have a good understanding of how it works.
Instead of dismissing the concept of networking or taking personal offense, you'd probably be better served learning how to use it as a tool. Pick up a copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People. It's a great book. Professional contacts don't appear out of the ether, you have to go out and meet people. If you do that you're in a much better position than simply submitting your resume and praying for a response.
I think this is where the disconnect is. Networking is also a form of favouritism. One that involves more work than being born or making political donations, but a form of favouritism nonetheless.
That is probably why I can't ever see working for a large corp, treating employees like shit somehow becomes a workable strategy past a certain size. In smaller companies, you need to keep the talented guys & gals whenever possible. Treat them like shit, and you're left with an empty shell of a company that hiring a bunch of temps is not going to solve. And that's not even considering the massive performance boost you get from your employees giving a damn because they enjoy working for you.
That is probably why I can't ever see working for a large corp, treating employees like shit somehow becomes a workable strategy past a certain size. In smaller companies, you need to keep the talented guys & gals whenever possible. Treat them like shit, and you're left with an empty shell of a company that hiring a bunch of temps is not going to solve. And that's not even considering the massive performance boost you get from your employees giving a damn because they enjoy working for you.
Eh, it kind of depends on the company. Big firms also have the money to offer good compensation/benefits and the staff so you don't have to work more than an 8 hour day typically. The girl works for a fairly small non-profit that could probably literally hire half a dozen people and all it would do is cut down on overtime. Which would probably save money since they'd be more productive and less prone to burn out, but good luck convincing people of that, even with stats backing you up.
So basically you just need to work for people who aren't jerks. Good luck finding 'em.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Nepotism and Cronyism are rather specific forms of favoritism. Networking is a form of marketing. Maybe you came into this thread not knowing that (and that's cool), but I'm sure you've google searched by now and realize that "nepotism" is not a synonym for "networking", which was the original controversy.
Networking is something you can actively do, it's not just sitting around hoping your old college buddy hits it big or begging Uncle Bob for a job at his dealership. I wasn't suggesting that you were "jealous", I was suggesting that the people that the people that thought networking = nepotism, don't have a good understanding of how it works.
Instead of dismissing the concept of networking or taking personal offense, you'd probably be better served learning how to use it as a tool. Pick up a copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People. It's a great book. Professional contacts don't appear out of the ether, you have to go out and meet people. If you do that you're in a much better position than simply submitting your resume and praying for a response.
I think this is where the disconnect is. Networking is also a form of favouritism. One that involves more work than being born or making political donations, but a form of favouritism nonetheless.
I see your point, but I disagree. In my opinion favoritism implies that the benefit is unearned, and this isn't necessarily the case.
For example, yesterday my fiance got a job offer. She interviewed for a position at the company a year ago. She got the job, but wasn't really interested. She recommended her friend as someone who might be. Her friend gets the job. Over the past year, raz stayed in touch, and a better job opened up. They called her up even though her friend already moved on. My fiance did not apply for this job.
If she had just said "not interested" last year and left it at that, she would not have been on the hiring manager's radar. She isn't buddy buddy with this person, in fact I may have met her at a happy hour once, but Im not sure. However, because she took the effort to maintain her as a professional contact, she was seen as an actual human being, instead of being just another resume in the pile.
Deebaser on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
That is probably why I can't ever see working for a large corp, treating employees like shit somehow becomes a workable strategy past a certain size. In smaller companies, you need to keep the talented guys & gals whenever possible. Treat them like shit, and you're left with an empty shell of a company that hiring a bunch of temps is not going to solve. And that's not even considering the massive performance boost you get from your employees giving a damn because they enjoy working for you.
Eh, it kind of depends on the company. Big firms also have the money to offer good compensation/benefits and the staff so you don't have to work more than an 8 hour day typically.
Yeah this is totally YMMV. It's common for workers to eat the big donkey dick to MAXIMIZE PROFITS, but it's not universal. There are some large companies that are pretty sweet to work for and some small offices that are exploitative shitholes.
I'm wondering when we'll finally see something give on some of these unfair business practices. I'd like to think that the whole "we're going to save money and make obscene profits by relying on unpaid interns" thing would eventually get beat down after enough people get fucked over by it.
On that note, I'm also wondering when they look into some of the unscrupulous practices that corporations are creating in regards to temp hires. "Guess we have to actually pay someone for this. I know let's grab a temp person, hold them for as long as the temp agency lets us, then hire them on the full probation period before letting them go."
I'm not even going to touch on the BS involved with H1Bs and that some expect you to let them see your facebook profile because they are too fucking lazy to do their own screening.
The 'give me your facebook password' thing is completely absurd, and a gigantic abuse of power. Even asking should be illegal. The only request they should be allowed to make is asking you to take down the whole thing if you are working in some critical role. The only thing that work should judge you on is your capacity to do the work, whether you enjoyed a wednesday night kegger in college is none of their business if you do the work you are asked to.
Nepotism and Cronyism are rather specific forms of favoritism. Networking is a form of marketing. Maybe you came into this thread not knowing that (and that's cool), but I'm sure you've google searched by now and realize that "nepotism" is not a synonym for "networking", which was the original controversy.
Networking is something you can actively do, it's not just sitting around hoping your old college buddy hits it big or begging Uncle Bob for a job at his dealership. I wasn't suggesting that you were "jealous", I was suggesting that the people that the people that thought networking = nepotism, don't have a good understanding of how it works.
Instead of dismissing the concept of networking or taking personal offense, you'd probably be better served learning how to use it as a tool. Pick up a copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People. It's a great book. Professional contacts don't appear out of the ether, you have to go out and meet people. If you do that you're in a much better position than simply submitting your resume and praying for a response.
The problem isn't "oh, I don't know how to network; please, teach me, Deebaser." The problem is that getting a job should be based on more than just stumbling across the right cock to suck.
The problem isn't "oh, I don't know how to network; please, teach me, Deebaser." The problem is that getting a job should be based on more than just stumbling across the right cock to suck.
The problem isn't "oh, I don't know how to network; please, teach me, Deebaser." The problem is that getting a job should be based on more than just stumbling across the right cock to suck.
Posts
The thing is, we like to believe in a meritocracy where the guy who has some sort of word-of-mouth "in" has an equal shot against the guy who does not, but nonetheless has similar credentials.
A lot of the time, yeah, favoring the slightly more known quantity is probably going to work out fine, and will no doubt save a whole lot of money from an HR perspective. I think the anxiety here is the ethical issue of every man and woman believing that if he or she works hard, she always has a chance, only to find that, like, the job posting was purely an attempt to conform to the state law's HR practices. I've seen this. In my final days at my old job I was informed of the serious bother involved in the pesky interview process, and how much it would help if I could just point to a guy who could easily replace me. That instinct makes perfect sense from a business standpoint, but it's potentially quite at odds with creating meaningful space for social mobility.
*Create Job Req*
"Team, we have an opening"
"I know someone that might be interested"
"Give me their resumé."
*interview*
*Hi 5*
1. Create job req
2. "Team, we have an opening"
...
3. Post opening to Careerbuilder/Monster*
4. Sift through unqualified applicants that can't read/don't care what the job is.
5. Take several calls from recruiters trying to get you to pay them to find candidates
6. Take the first dozen resumé's that you like and suspect aren't full of shit.
7. Have a meeting to discuss candidates with virtually identical resumés
8. Whittle that list down to five based on meritocratic superficial nonsense,such as this dude listed his Hish School GPA for some reason. That's weird.
9.Send five resumé's to HR
10. one guy can't make it to the interview. four people are interviewed. Of the four, one was obviously lying about everything on his resume except possibly his name. One was a complete dickbag, and two were bad fits
11. repeat steps 4-10. Sob.
That's a great job you've done of exaggerating the faults of one side of the argument while completely disregarding the faults with your own. Really, bravo. I mean, I see the pros and cons of both sides here but god damn, that is one strawmanny post you've written here.
This isn't a rebuttal. Maybe you meant to post argument.jpg
Also, none of that was an exaggeration. As a hiring manager,
I feel for you guys. Born in '77. When I was hired into my first real job in 2000, I was the young guy. Now I'm 34 ... and I'm still the young guy. This company simply does not hire and train any new talent. I have begged my boss to hire a kid and sit him next to me so I can teach him everything I know. I've even interviewed candidates, but they never get hired. Except H1Bs. Apparently we have positions that no American can fill, despite widespread youth unemployment. I was incredulous when I saw that notice in the breakroom.
and you were just complaining about strawmen?
Really, dude?
I wasn't intending to suggest that happened every time for every posting. Also, if you think you have something to add to the conversation and you're linking an uninspired meme jpg, you're probably wrong.
Incidentally, this is why 'entry level jobs' can seem impossible to get in virtually any industry in major cities that crank out new college graduates - the are a FUCKLOAD of people who can do that work, and that's not even including the folks who want to make a lateral move 2-3 years in because their current employer isn't offering advancement opportunist, etc.
Honestly if you know what mind of entry level job you want and are able to clear that 'capable of doing the work' bar on your resume, I'd start keeping an eye out for openings in rural and economically disadvantaged areas; think 'places where they'll pay for your med school if you agree to work in a clinic ther for 10 years'. Those places don't just need doctors - they need everything, because no young college educated professionals ever go there. They don't need by many of them, but they do need them, and it's like going back in time by a few decades - I moved from an area where nearly 50% of the population had at least a bachelors to an area where around 17% do, and most of those are established professionals. Suddenly a 'useless' generic BA ain't so useless.
Personally, I found a HUGE difference in applying for entry level jobs in that kind of area; it basically goes from "yeah, you could do the job. I'll toss your app in the stack with all the others I guess" to "holy shit, you're qualified? When can you start?"
Saying a strawman is a strawman... is a strawman? Well shit, it's strawmen all the way down. And for the record no, you did not make that post with the qualifier "this happens one time in ten or one time in twenty", you just made a post saying "this is an example of using networking to hire someone vs an example of not using networking to hire someone". I think even you can admit you used the ideal outcome for the networking and the worst case scenario for merit. That's what I was pointing out and that's what you did. You can semantics this thread into the ground if you like but it won't change that simple fact.
The joke is I'm not even one of the people saying networking is 100% bad. I just took issue with it being portraid as if it's never used to hire deadweight because "hey, he's the bosses nephew".
This is very good advice if you can actually do it (many can't due to family concerns etc) If you are willing to move, and to look at 'odd' areas of the country there can be a lot more opportunities in your field than in the town near your college. Yes, perhaps Denver has 90% of the jobs in field X and you love living there but it also probably has 99% of the skilled people. That other 10% of jobs is out there clamoring for people who can do the work and are willing to live in South Dakota or whatever.
To put it in plain terms, they were examples. Hiring is the worst. The absolute worst. Everything about hiring is terrible. That isn't even the worst case example I can come up with re: hiring a pubbie. That's just what typically happens.
Having someone in-house vouch for someone outside is usually a good thing. Some managers like Cpt's are retarded and hire terrible people. Sometimes people put their friends in and they fail the drug test and it causes a shitton of embarassment all around. Sometimes randos interview really well, but they don't know dick.
And the bosses nephew thing? That's nepotism, not networking. Nepotism is generally considered a bad thing. My point at the start of this is that nepotism and networking are not the same thing. Networking certainly isn't a form of nepotism. And nepotism isn't really even really a form of networking.
I'd say there is a definate overlap between nepotism and networking. Their Venn diagrams are at least linked. If Candidate A calls his uncle, looking for a job for which he is qualified, and his uncle recommends him for the position then it's still networking. If however another person at the same level in the company recommends an identical candidate who is a business assosciate and the company hires the nephew then it's both nepotism AND networking since the initial move was networking (the person was qualified for the position) and the refusal of the second candidate was due to nepotism (the closer relationship was favored for no reason beyond that)
Companies love networking and nepotism, with networking being best but even elements of nepotism being better than just casting out a random net. Both create accountability within the firm with respect to the new hire, and increase the information advantage the company possesses over the new hire. Both favor the well connected individual over the equally competent new entry to the field. It's why you should never neglect a potential contact or refuse a request from someone for help/advice in getting a position. You never know when they will be able to return the favor. You can do the same to an extent at college too, remember that even new hires can recommend other new hires. The moment you walk in the door your opinion on other hires increases in importance a hundred fold.
Networking is a form of cronyism. That's the fucking point of networking.
It's like you don't understand at all how networking works. The whole purpose is to make connections so that they think of you first or think better of you, rather then someone else when a position or something of the like comes up.
The whole purpose of networking is to advance yourself via personal connections. Nepotism is the same thing, just for a specific type of personal connection. There is no meaningful difference between hiring someone because he's your cousin and hiring someone because he's your friend. It's a distinction without a difference.
And none of this has anything to do with the fact that you threw out a shit "your just jealous" argument because you had no rebuttal. It's still pathetic.
I mean, I totally get why people do it; shit, I got my job that way. That doesn't make it fair, but I've gotta eat.
Networking = Making people aware of you based on your skills and trust you based on your personal connection to someone they trust
Nepotism = Making people aware of you based on simply your personal connection to someone in the firm and rewarding you simply for that personal connection
Nepotism is very like networking, but it's not the same. They can be based on each other, but they don't have to be. Trust is an important thing to companies, and your resume can't really show that you are someone they can rely on. The testimony of someone in the firm, and their mutual accountability should that trust be breached, is much better.
I don't know that I agree with this sentiment. Would you have a problem with me going to get a bullshit certification to pad my resume so that I'm the guy they pick? How is that any different than using contacts to get a bump? Neither has much bearing on my ability to do the job. Their sole purpose is to get me in the door.
At what point does using everything at your disposal to set yourself apart from the pack become a bad thing (beyond the obvious problem of using it to get a job you aren't qualified to do)?
Generally a certification means you educated yourself.
Networking means you can hold your liquor.
I'm wondering when we'll finally see something give on some of these unfair business practices. I'd like to think that the whole "we're going to save money and make obscene profits by relying on unpaid interns" thing would eventually get beat down after enough people get fucked over by it.
On that note, I'm also wondering when they look into some of the unscrupulous practices that corporations are creating in regards to temp hires. "Guess we have to actually pay someone for this. I know let's grab a temp person, hold them for as long as the temp agency lets us, then hire them on the full probation period before letting them go."
I'm not even going to touch on the BS involved with H1Bs and that some expect you to let them see your facebook profile because they are too fucking lazy to do their own screening.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Such as me going back and doing every cisco or microsoft cert for skills I already have in spades and are readily identifiable on my resume from past work experience. They won't make me any more knowledgeable in those areas than I already am, but they sure will look pretty on my resume.
And the notion that networking is ONLY about going out drinking with people is the thing that bothers me about this conversation. It is completely mis-characterizing the majority of networking that takes place.
Nepotism and Cronyism are rather specific forms of favoritism. Networking is a form of marketing. Maybe you came into this thread not knowing that (and that's cool), but I'm sure you've google searched by now and realize that "nepotism" is not a synonym for "networking", which was the original controversy.
Networking is something you can actively do, it's not just sitting around hoping your old college buddy hits it big or begging Uncle Bob for a job at his dealership. I wasn't suggesting that you were "jealous", I was suggesting that the people that the people that thought networking = nepotism, don't have a good understanding of how it works.
Instead of dismissing the concept of networking or taking personal offense, you'd probably be better served learning how to use it as a tool. Pick up a copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People. It's a great book. Professional contacts don't appear out of the ether, you have to go out and meet people. If you do that you're in a much better position than simply submitting your resume and praying for a response.
That's not bullshit, that's redundancy and proof.
It's bullshit from the point of view of it not making me better able to do the job I'm applying for. It just seems like we are saying you can put a bunch of effort into getting hired by using these skills but not those skills. Those skills are bad.
edit: and I would argue that the recommendation I received also constitutes a form of proof. Someone is vouching for my ability to do the job.
I really want my Project Management Professional cert so bad. If only for the week i would add ", PMP" to my email sig.
Credentialing versus favouritism. They are both relatively bullshit, but only one of them is generally open to the multitudes.
Hopefully DOJ will eventually start to harshly enforce labour laws, but I'm not going to hold my breath for too long. On the one hand it's a pretty massive subsidy that benefits shareholders and executives. On the other hand it easily falls prey to the same mindset as hazing. I had to suffer through semesters of getting people coffee for free, why should these new assholes get to avoid the pain when I didn't. Eventually something is going to have to give just due to demographics and economic reality for 20 somethings, but I just can't really imagine how its going to end. Other than badly.
I think this is where the disconnect is. Networking is also a form of favouritism. One that involves more work than being born or making political donations, but a form of favouritism nonetheless.
Eh, it kind of depends on the company. Big firms also have the money to offer good compensation/benefits and the staff so you don't have to work more than an 8 hour day typically. The girl works for a fairly small non-profit that could probably literally hire half a dozen people and all it would do is cut down on overtime. Which would probably save money since they'd be more productive and less prone to burn out, but good luck convincing people of that, even with stats backing you up.
So basically you just need to work for people who aren't jerks. Good luck finding 'em.
I see your point, but I disagree. In my opinion favoritism implies that the benefit is unearned, and this isn't necessarily the case.
For example, yesterday my fiance got a job offer. She interviewed for a position at the company a year ago. She got the job, but wasn't really interested. She recommended her friend as someone who might be. Her friend gets the job. Over the past year, raz stayed in touch, and a better job opened up. They called her up even though her friend already moved on. My fiance did not apply for this job.
If she had just said "not interested" last year and left it at that, she would not have been on the hiring manager's radar. She isn't buddy buddy with this person, in fact I may have met her at a happy hour once, but Im not sure. However, because she took the effort to maintain her as a professional contact, she was seen as an actual human being, instead of being just another resume in the pile.
Yeah this is totally YMMV. It's common for workers to eat the big donkey dick to MAXIMIZE PROFITS, but it's not universal. There are some large companies that are pretty sweet to work for and some small offices that are exploitative shitholes.
The 'give me your facebook password' thing is completely absurd, and a gigantic abuse of power. Even asking should be illegal. The only request they should be allowed to make is asking you to take down the whole thing if you are working in some critical role. The only thing that work should judge you on is your capacity to do the work, whether you enjoyed a wednesday night kegger in college is none of their business if you do the work you are asked to.
Because thats really what networking is...