As a professional "headhunter," I spend many hours counseling and coaching job seekers, in an attempt to get them properly oriented to the realities of the current job market before they venture forth into the marketplace. I focus on not what they think the market is like, but rather, on what it really is like today. Many of the things I tell these men and women about today's job market not only surprises them, it actually shocks and affronts some of them. Let me give you just one example.
Contrary to popular opinion, rarely do companies hire the best candidate, I tell them, they almost always hire the safest candidate-for virtually any given position. Those job seekers who are either relatively new to the hiring game or those who haven't been in the fray for quite some time, are almost always immediately suspicious of this statement. Some are even outraged! That simply can't be true, they usually protest. True it remains, however. And it has been true for as long as I've been in the recruiting business. It's simply gotten "worse" (if that's the correct term to use here) as the job market continues to tighten.
All of this of course begs the question: What, exactly, is the definition of a "safe" candidate? Early in my career I coined a phrase to help candidates visualize what a "safe" candidate looks like. It's merely someone who doesn't cast "shadows on the wall" at the hiring company.
Remember when you were a child and were safely tucked into your bed each evening? Occasionally, say, when a wind began blowing the trees outside your bedroom window, shadows would suddenly be cast on your bedroom walls as the trees swayed in the wind. You became uneasy if not downright afraid, correct? The same basic principle applies with hiring managers and companies. Anything-and I do mean anything-that casts "shadows on the wall" tends to make them very uneasy and fearful about hiring you.
Let me give you an example of how a candidate can, many times unknowingly or even unintentionally, cast "shadows on the wall."
Mary Jones is being very seriously considered for a position as a chemist in ABC company. She presented a literally sparkling résumé when she applied to the company and it was instrumental in her quickly receiving an invitation to do a telephone interview. She aced that interview and was soon invited to company headquarters for the all-important "face-to-face" interview. So far, so good.
Now Mary has always been a very truthful person. Ask her virtually anything and she will unerringly tell the truth, the complete truth, or at least the truth as she knows it. So, after asking a few "warming up" questions to get her relaxed and confident, the hiring manager (as they are certainly wont to do!) suddenly asks her this question:
"Mary, tell me about the absolute worst boss you've ever had," he tells her.
After just a brief moment's hesitation to collect her thoughts, Mary then launches into a (truthful!) story about...well...the worst boss she ever had!
Unfortunately, Mary's candidacy abruptly went from being very promising to her being summarily excluded from further consideration, at least in the mind of the hiring manager. Why? Because she was truthful? No, because she didn't use good judgment and take proper account of either the circumstances or the setting in which she was discussing her "worst boss ever"! In other words, she cast "shadows on the wall" for the hiring manager and he became "frightened." After all, he reasoned, if she so readily impugned the integrity of a former boss, what would keep her from possibly doing the very same thing to a new boss at ABC Company? His company! And who would be "blamed" for recommending hiring Mary? Well, he would, of course!
Let me hasten to add, however, that being a "safe" candidate does NOT mean that you have to become someone you're not, or that you must "suck up" to a hiring manager if you ever hope to be seriously considered for a position. What it does mean, though, is that you must always be on extremely high alert when interviewing for a position, any position. To be lulled into a false sense of security during an interview, or to begin thinking the hiring manager is your new "best friend," almost always ends up in your being quickly eliminated from further consideration!
Job seekers must always, always, always keep in mind that the entire hiring process is one of exclusion, not of inclusion. That is, in order to get to the final "pool" of potential candidates, virtually all hiring managers try and "weed out" as many applicants as possible as soon as possible. Give them a reason to exclude you and they will quickly take it and move on to the next applicant.
The type of question our fictitious candidate Mary (though certainly an all too-real situation!) was asked is what we in the recruiting business refer to as "gotcha'!" questions, and be assured hiring managers have a boatload of these types of questions. And they never miss a chance to use them, either. They deliberately try and catch a candidate "off guard." Knowing how to answer such questions, and even more importantly, how not to answer them, almost always spells the difference between an applicant moving on to the next level of consideration for a position or not.
DIAGNOSTIC MEDICINE
So, I wanted to find House, MD (the king of diagnostic physicians on TV) in my local area. I research online to find out there is no Diagnostic Specialty. Although this seems ludicrous, I continue. My search leads me to find that most doctors believe they are diagnosticians. And they are, to some extent. Most doctors will take a history, declare that you have a cold or a bruise or a pain cleaners dubai or worse and send you to a local specialist in the region/system of your body that is affected.
This redirection to specialists doesn't speak to finding a doctor with diagnostic ability. Only that you are being directed to someone else whose credentials you don't have. Shouldn't each doctor have a diagnostic rating, if the medical system doesn't include this as a specialty? How about a rating on a scale of 1 to 10 for level of diagnostic skill set? A peer-rated system would work well, alongside a customer rated system. Delving, deducing, concluding and having the ability to integrate and pull from vast knowledge in infection, degeneration, heredity, mental and environmental health require a special skill. So, why not have a separate specialization and definitive certification in Diagnostic Medicine? If we wait a few years, for political correctness, Internal Medicine will probably be called Diagnostic Medicine with no change in requirements.
THE DOCTOR IS IN THE PATIENT'S EMPLOY
On this search, we must start out by putting roles into perspective. WE, THE PATIENTS, are the employer, by hiring the doctor. Unfortunately, the demand for competence and diagnostic skill is higher than the supply. So, we forget our roles, for the most part, and consider ourselves lucky when the employee allows us to hire her/him. Bottom line: when we are in need of doctoring, our perspective changes and we lose focus.
Even though we usually forget, we, in the role of employer, can monitor, direct and impact the behavior of the doctor, in the role of employee, to some extent. True, each doctor delivers service in her/his own way and has the right to do so. But, we have the right to ask questions, extend our time of service if we need it, be satisfied that we have been well attended to and terminate employment of the doctor, if we are not satisfied. Hint: talk to the doctor, and don't be shy. Doctors like to clarify.
In many cases, although doctors have taken an oath of service, they may feel the need to act pompous and ego-filled. This may be a result of their wanting to wear on their sleeve the blood, sweat, tears and coin they expended to complete medical school. It happens. It's a natural occurrence when you learn a great deal that the pride and the skill can leak out arrogantly. It's bad manners; it's not always; it's human and what's a little insecurity among fellow humans who save lives? Bottom line, doctors, usually, do not think of themselves as YOUR employee or YOUR servant.
Because of caseloads, rising malpractice insurance costs, "allowable amount" cuts from insurance companies, increased sickness; doctors, typically, spend less time their patients because their roster has grown along with expense. Typical consumers do not pay for "exclusive" care. The concierge doctor set-up is a great option, resulting from an overstock of patients or from consumers' dissatisfaction with five-minute-only appointments with doctors. Choosing to pay double or ten times the fee for the security of a 20-, 30- or 60-minute appointment is part of our free enterprise system. Long live it!
DOCTOR CREDENTIALS
We are told to research internists, that they are the closest thing to a diagnostician. But should we have to become customers before we do our research or in order to do our research? Should we have to pay to interview our employee? Should we have to purchase a service we know nothing about? Shouldn't we have open online access to a central, non-fee based doctor information system where we can find all the credentials on one page, or a spec sheet, like the MSDS, (materials safety data sheet) for manufacturing?
Let's go back to my term "doctor." I have been using this term to mean anyone who does doctoring. I am not using the words "anyone who practices medicine"