Employer Fail #4.5: The Troika

After the uselessness that was interview prep, the next day I headed over to my on-site interview. Getting there was generally uneventful, except for a couple on the train that kept staring at me, only to notify me once we got off that part of my tie was crooked. Thanks, I guess, but I really could've gone without having you two ogle me the entire ride over. I found the company's monolithic headquarters without a problem--finding the proper entrance in such a large building was harder. I went in and came up to the front desk, staffed by two very disgruntled secretaries.

My explanation that I was there for an interview was met more with confusion than understanding. Probably not a good sign. This confusion, however, didn't discourage the secretaries from handing me a gigantic form on a clipboard, and telling me to fill it out. I grabbed a seat on a bench and proceeded go through five pages of really boring questions, all of which I had already filled out on the staffing agency's serpentine form a week ago.

Agency Fail #5/Employer Fail #27: How hard is it to require applicants to submit personal information in such a manner that it can be easily transferred to your clients with open positions they'd like filled? It's not like we live in an age where transmitting information electronically is free and instant or anything, right?

In another rather unfortunate sign, another applicant, presumably for the same position, that had arrived a few minutes after me, was sitting on another bench with his clipboard-bound application, talking loudly on his cell phone about "this bitch" and "that bitch" and generally not really putting any effort into looking presentable--or filling out his application. At one point, he actually just left the application on the bench and went outside so he could presumably elevate his voice. I'm not sure whether he just left then or actually returned for an interview--by the time I left mine, he was nowhere to be seen.

The initial interviewer, an HR rep for the company, was much more pleasant than I expected. She was nice and personable, which I guess is her job as a member of HR, but still jarring given the sneers of the front desk secretaries and the fact that she worked for a telecommunications company. She prattled on for a long while about the job, repeatedly asking me to make sure I was down with a lot of the job's unique qualities, including:

1) Being glued to a computer screen all day.
2) Doing "analytical" things. (More on this later.)
3) Working in a very quiet environment where noise was far from standard.
4) Working in a productive and efficient manner. (Who isn't down with that? Yes, hi, I'd like to apply for a job where you'll let me slack off and read NASCAR forums from 10:00 to 12:00 and 2:00 to 4:00...)
5) Working in an environment where my keystrokes would be logged as a check on my efficiency, and my productivity would be calculated, ranked against the other employees, and posted in the office for all to see?

It's not that I really had a problem with any of those, even the ridiculously-1984-like fifth point, but the more I heard about the position, the more I realized that a staffing agency was being utilized to find applicants because there was little chance that the company could easily attract any candidates to consider the position on its own. In an economy where getting a job is a little less of a pain, it is the norm, perhaps to management's chagrin, that employees spend some of their time slacking off in various ways. I mean, think about your own experiences, and those of people you know. Is anyone perpetually going full-throttle? Hence, to require that from someone that's being paid not much above minimum wage, well, that's a little inconsiderate at best, and highly draconian and exploitative at worst. Again, no wonder that a staffing agency would be the see-no-evil intermediary in the process.

Employer Fail #28/Agency Fail #6: Putting a 1984-veneer on a low-paying, low-ranking position. On the agency's side, unquestioningly processing the request to find candidates for such a position, while hiding the undesirable aspects and letting candidates discover them for themselves at the on-site interview.

In any case, I repeatedly assured the first interviewer that none of these seemed like a problem for me, and that I understood the need for such measures. (Understand, yes. Agree with? Not in the least.) She then informed me that she wasn't really asking me questions because it wasn't her job--my evaluation would be done by the next two interviewers, both of whom were more closely attuned to the position than an HR rep would be. Soon after, she left, and I was left to stew in the interview room for about fifteen minutes until someone came to take her place.

That someone was the floor manager of the department I would presumably be working in, an aging woman that was humorless, but not out of ruthlessness. At "interview prep," I was hammered with a barrage of questions that the staffing agency claimed past candidates had attested would be asked at the on-site interview. Of these, one, maybe two, were ever asked during my time with the interviewer troika. Good job using my time wisely on that one, eh?

Agency Fail #7: If you're going to waste my time on "interview prep" I don't need, at least try to make sure that I'm actually going to be preparing by answering questions that are going to be asked of me.

The whole questioning-me thing didn't last very long anyway, and soon it was my turn to ask questions that the HR rep told me to save because the other two interviewers would be better able to answer them. One of my early questions concerned training and how it would proceed. The important nugget of information here was that the floor manager had, at some point earlier in her lifetime, actually written the entire training course. Okay, I thought, so maybe she does know her stuff, so she can answer some concrete questions. (Once again, paraphrased from memory:)

"So, I've been told by everyone, the people at the staffing agency, and your own representatives, that the job is very analytical. From what I've heard, however, in terms of order processing, it is more like determining the order, finding out how to label, code, and process it, and then doing so accurately. Is this the right assessment of the analytical components of this position? Does the analysis come in when trying to determine how to label/code/process a given order?"
"Yes... erm... no... well... you see, the job is very analytical. Yes, very analytical. And it's analytical in that, well, there are a lot of analytical components that require thinking, such as, you know, how to process the orders and then at first you have just simple orders, but later on as you get more experience and we trust you more, you have to handle the more complex orders, and sometimes there are side projects that we work on, but those also have tight deadlines, so the entire office has to help out if we're to meet the deadline."

Whoa, slow down there, Miss Teen South Carolina. (At least she didn't mention "the Iraq.") So, let me get this straight. The job is analytical because it's analytical, because you said so. Got it. Brilliant! Ignoring the segue into side projects, I figured I'd ask something that might get at the heart of what I was going for.

"So, okay, could you tell me exactly what separates a simple order from a complex one? I see you making this distinction, but how exactly are they different? Is it just in the amount of coding and processing that has to be done, or what?"
"Well, you see, there are simple order and complex orders. And you don't need to worry about the complex ones now, because you'll only be doing them down the line, and then you'll have a manager or someone overseeing you to help you get started on them. And complex orders, you know, they can be either something bigger or a special demand, no, wait, actually, special demands are side projects, like we had one from a chain of pharmacies a while back last winter... "

Against others' better judgment (but not mine!) I decided to press on one more time:

"Yes, I understand, but say I'm processing a complex order. Where exactly is the complexity? Is it simply that I have to do more, or is there a concrete analytical component that isn't there with the simple orders?"
"Yes, it's very analytical. All of it is very analytical. An analytical position. And there are complex orders, and simple orders, and side projects." (Seriously, enough with the side projects.)

I gave up, for the time being. Maybe I could get answers from the final interviewer that I couldn't get from this manager, despite her claims about designing the training course.

Employer Fail #29: Not only did you hire Miss Teen South Carolina and age her using Satanic magicks about forty years, but now you're letting her loose and allowing her to interview people? Shame on you.

After sitting alone for less time, maybe around five minutes, the last of the troika appeared. She was the vice president for something or other, but she looked like the VP-for-killing-people-with-her-glare. Tall, sharply dressed, hardened facial expression, humorless because her heart had been shot one too many times by Sub-Zero's down+forward->punch special, you get the idea. My interview with her lasted about five minutes, which was pretty much expected because she probably had some poor souls to turn to stone with her glare, or something equally as important to the company's shareholders.

I tried asking about analytical things, and was told simply, "The job is analytical and places a high emphasis on efficiency and accuracy. Do you think you can handle that?" I asked about the distinction between complex and simple orders and received "There are varying difficulties of orders, and you are qualified to tackle more complex orders as you receive more responsibility in your position" as a reply. After my questions, it was her turn, for a brief period. She really only asked one question, and that's all she needed to. It functioned as the death knell, but it was basically unavoidable, and as destructive as it generally is.

"I see you graduated with distinction with degrees in economics and history. Can you explain to me what's drawing you to this position?"

I wanted to stand up, flip the table out of the way, and shout, "Listen, you gorgon in a pantsuit. You know as well as I do what's drawing me to this position. The fact that it's a job when there are no jobs. The fact that it pays something, even though it doesn't pay nearly enough for the kind of stuff you subject your employees to. The fact that it will give me something to do, something to pride myself on, something to put on my resume so it doesn't look like I spent the last few months doing some combination of marinating in a coffin or playing Mortal Kombat. The fact that I know I'm smart, competent, and earnest enough to give you more in this position than another candidate, which you yourself should be able to tell because presumably your petrifying eyes still enable you to read a resume, and that what you want is someone that does the job well in all senses of that word. That's what's drawing me to this position." (This actually mirrors the thoughts running through my mind whenever I'm asked that question, give or take gorgons and pantsuits. This is because I rarely get interviews with things that I'd actually be excited about doing.)

But, I didn't say that. Instead I gave a much less interesting response about how I was drawn to a position where I could use the problem-solving skills I garnered from a liberal arts education in a setting critical to helping an organization achieve success. Or something like that, all that hackneyed garbage starts to blend in my head after a few minutes anyway. Of course, she of the Medusa eyes saw right through that instantly. She didn't say anything, or really make any gesture expressing her skepticism or disapproval, but I still knew. And I think she knew I knew, if only because of her serpentine perception. Where's a reflective shield and sword when you need it?

Employer Fail #30: You hired both mutated Miss Teen South Carolina and the Gorgon Queen to work overlapping shifts at your company.

In retrospect, one thing is rather humorous. At interview prep, I was told to bring a notebook to take notes, (I was advised to scribble fake things down if I didn't need real notes) because doing so was reported to be a dealbreaker by prior applicants. I was skeptical, but did so anyway. Apparently, having a notebook and taking notes was supposed to signal interest in the position to the interviewers. I also tried to signal my interest in other ways, such as trying to discern what exactly was so analytical about the position, to no avail. The notebook was not a dealbreaker, however. What was a dealbreaker, on the other hand, was one of the cruelest ironies that continues to persist in the job market today: losing favor with employers because you're overqualified. Yes, it makes sense, but only in a narrow sense. Yes, you might be afraid that someone that's overqualified might take company time and money during training, put in a few weeks, get bored, and leave. Yes, you may worry that if hired, they're going to be a prima donna and cause office trouble. Yes, you can even worry that they're so overqualified they'll be promoted so promptly they'll end up replacing you, the hiring manager (more on this in the future). But isn't that what an interview is supposed to be for? Can't you attempt to screen for people's prima donna tendencies? Can't you attempt to screen for someone's trustworthiness if they give you an assurance that they won't jump at the next big ship that passes by? Is it really worth it to take someone that, by all indicators, might actually be worse at the job, because you, in your laziness or trepidation, decide that screening is too hard and the risk of replacement is too great? Yes, apparently it is worth it. This is the dealbreaker, not whether or not I brought a notebook.

Employer Fail #31: Yes, sometimes employers do give those they deem overqualified a chance. But not quite often enough. I promise that I won't jump ship quickly. I promise that I won't act out. Nothing in my record, in my history, shows that I'm anything but diligent and efficient. And yet, you have problems. Shame on you.

Of course, this couldn't end with just one more instance of fail. The HR rep met me after the pantsuit gorgon left to take me back downstairs to the exit. We engaged in small talk and she notified me that they would "take care of everything" in terms of notifying me and the staffing agency. During "interview prep" I was told to call the staffing agency myself, and when I brought this up to the HR rep, she told me that it wasn't their place to make me do that, and that they would do everything. All I had to do was sit tight and wait in case they called me. They didn't.

Employer Fail #32/Agency Fail #8: I am not supposed to be some pariah or go-between for whatever corporate relationship issues you haven't yet managed to work out. Figure out who calls whom yourselves.

This interview generally confirmed my suspicions that staffing agency-provided positions weren't quite tailored for me. But, like I said earlier, eventually I'm going to have to cave and throw myself into that unpleasant maelstrom again, especially as other cups begin to runneth dry.