On Interview Questions, Nicholas Sparks, and Unrealistic Love

in , ,

Image description: A scene from the film adaptation of the Nicholas Sparks novel "The Notebook." Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams, the film's two white co-stars, are kissing in the rain, both of them heavily drenched. Ryan Gosling is lifting Rachel McAdams up. Rachel's legs are wrapped around Ryan Gosling's waist.

I think it's time for us to collectively agree to stop asking candidates interviewing for positions the question, "Why do you want to work here?" (especially if you're asking that question because you seek candidates ready to enter into a "love affair" with your employer). Why should we all agree to stop asking this question?

  1. You're looking for someone who's in love with your company. You're looking for someone to gush over how awesome your company is, not a candidate that could do a great job. Real talk? It's weird to expect someone to love your workplace without working for you for at least six months, which is usually when people know if they even like working for you (note: for marginalized folx, that timeframe is generally shorter). Just because a candidate loves the PR work your company did to put a positive image out on the internet and the DEIA blurbs and proclamations on your company website don't mean the reality of working for your company won't leave them wanting more.

  2. You realize that many candidates who apply for positions with your company are applying because they have the skills and experience you claim you're seeking and are just looking for steady employment, right? Sometimes a job is just an end to a means. Sometimes it's doing what you need to do to survive and live a life with less stress and anxiety around job security and financial security. And that's OK. We need to normalize this. You and the candidate both have needs that you want to be met, and it's OK to hire folx who will do great work for your company but aren't in love with your company or go to your company game nights every week. You're hiring to fill a role, not to find a new buddy or "family member." By default, the "right fit" mentality is filled with bias and questions like this. By asking this question, you're making filling a position a popularity contest or an episode of The Bachelor.

You want a better question to ask candidates than "Why do you want to work here?" How about "When you saw this job posting, what was it about this position that made you want to apply?" This question de-centers your needs and hopefully allows the space for a candidate to share why the job interests them.

Stop looking for "love affairs." Your workplace is most definitely not a Nicholas Sparks novel.

Image description: A scene from the film adaptation of the Nicholas Sparks novel "The Notebook." Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams, the film's two white co-stars, are kissing in the rain, both of them heavily drenched. Ryan Gosling is lifting Rachel McAdams up. Rachel's legs are wrapped around Ryan Gosling's waist.

The Problem with PIPs That Ain't Affiliated with Gladys

in , , ,

There's been a lot of talks recently about performance improvement plans, their effectiveness, and whether or not they meet a legitimate need. The short answer? No. They aren't effective, and they don't meet a legitimate need. But, like most things that are messy and workplace-related, it's much deeper than the short answer.

Read More

On Acronyms, Action, and Schoolhouse Rock

in , , , , ,

(Not so) hot take: legitimate equity and inclusion an acronym or committee does not make.

All of the BJEDI, JEDI, IDEA, DEI, EDI, and other assorted acronyms you can come up with will not replace action and initiatives that gradually build stronger and more sustainable workplace cultures. Acronyms don't matter if you aren't putting in the work. Acronyms are just words. Those words are nouns until you make them verbs and just verbs until you decide to put in the hard work that makes them action verbs.

Schoolhouse Rock taught a whole generation that but you wouldn’t know it by lookin’ at that generation running victory laps with their acronyms and committees.

On "Other Duties As Assigned"

in , ,

I don't make the memes. The memes make themselves.

Can we talk about how we are long overdue for removing the toxic concept of "other duties as assigned" from job descriptions and job postings?

According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management for federal employees [read: federal], "other duties as assigned" is meant to refer to minor tasks related to a role, so every possible scenario doesn't need to be stated in contracts, job descriptions, and related documentation. The issues for me lie in one place: this is a loophole of legalese used to work the crap out of people and push multiple jobs under one job description. Over time, non-federal jobs began to base most of their job-building practices on these guidelines, too. It's a trap for all of us, regardless of the sector we work in.

You can't plan for every possible scenario because no job is built in a wind tunnel. There will always be some functions of your role that evolve or possibly change on a given day or with a given situation. That should be expected because human beings and workplaces can be unpredictable at times. But when it comes to most jobs, the addition of "other duties as assigned" at the end of a job posting or job description has less to do with possibilities and more to do with "how can we legally merge two jobs into one when we're regularly short-staffed?" How many times have you found yourself legitimately stuck with doing random tasks and whatnot that have nothing to do with your job? Most of our jobs find us doing extra things that stray away from the jobs we applied for and accepted. Our organizations are constantly short-staffed in various areas and use this clause to fill long-term staffing gaps instead of an interim tool with a timeline. We, as employees, deserve better.

Employers need to evaluate job descriptions and make sure they are clear regarding job duties and feasible performance expectations at least annually (preferably twice a year). Employees need to be a part of that discussion around job duties; that way, you know if the position has evolved and whether or not tasks should be added or removed. And you should do this because it will allow you to build and maintain up-to-date job descriptions focused on the legitimate duties of the position that do not treat people like stop-gap measures. And employers need to evaluate why people leave their organizations and begin the messy long-term work of repairing and rebuilding hiring processes and retention. If you aren't constantly short-staffed, you have no reason to push for "other duties as assigned." Easier said than done? Of course. That doesn’t mean you don’t do it, though.

Consider it your duty to remove “other duties.”