Discover your dream Career
For Recruiters

Our Take: Attitude Adjustment

Just as the job market is gradually turning in their favor, some transitioning professionals are unwittingly sidelining themselves by falling prey to envy, resentment, delusion or self-pity.

The recession now drawing to a close has kept a great many people unemployed longer than ever before. In November more than 38 percent of jobless individuals had been out of work at least six months - the highest percentage since records began in 1948. A number of financial professionals I know have been in transition longer than a year. (However, three long-jobless contacts began new jobs this past month, a very positive sign.)

Being on the outside looking in is inevitably frustrating. But it's critical to avoid letting frustration sour your attitude. This is a frequent and valuable tip conveyed by career experts. Do whatever you must do to stay upbeat, urges Joshua Persky, a valuation consultant and author who has personally experienced long and frustrating job searches.

Inconvenient Truth?

Just how joblessness can corrode a person's attitude is evident from the responses eFinancialCareers News received to a hiring manager Q&A interview published Dec. 1. In that interview, a boutique investment bank's research director said he prefers unemployed candidates over employed ones, but with an important caveat: "There definitely is an expiration date just as there is for a gallon of milk. There is no set timeframe but it is about six months." After that, he explained, a salesperson's relationships with clients will likely atrophy, while a research analyst's connection with coverage universe and client base will start to weaken, eroding their value.

When publishing that article, I anticipated an enthusiastic response from eFC users. Boy, was I in for a surprise! Instead of asking how to contact that hiring manager, most comments bitterly attacked him for stating the simple fact that skills and contacts generally become rusty over the months a person isn't working. One commenter dismissed the article with an expletive, then - with irony that was surely unintended - went on to upbraid me for constructively criticizing a previous commenter's misdirected cynicism.

Adrift From Reality

Beyond the toxic attitudes, the comments also illustrate how a long time in limbo can dilute one's sense of reality. It reminds me of a guest blog entry in the Washington Post back in 2007, by a New Jersey woman struggling in vain to resume a career after a 20-year hiatus - and who blamed her difficulties on age discrimination. Her story represents an outlier, both in the length of time she hadn't worked and her extent of cluelessness about how modern employers evaluate job candidates. But because outliers often convey the clearest lessons of all, I will summarize her situation here.

She reported having a college degree, "post-graduate paralegal certificate" and a strong employment history. After taking 20 years off to raise two disabled children, she expected to parachute right back into a professional role. But, "The only interviews I get are for jobs that pay less than $30,000 a year and offer no benefits," she huffed. She equated her "community service, chairing the high school graduation gala, supervising 150 volunteers, 18 committees, and handling a budget of $60,000" with professional work experience. At one point she even appeared to refer to her paralegal certificate as "advanced degrees."

Similarly, one eFC commenter took offense at a hiring manager's judgment that he'd been "doing nothing for 6 months" while unemployed. He pointed out how much networking and job interviewing he'd done in that time. But I think that person was being disingenuous. Is there really anyone out there who's unaware such activities don't count as work experience?

True, there are activities you can list on a resume while in transition: projects performed on a contract basis, board service and regular volunteer work (especially if finance-related), or even - according to one career coach at least - substantial unpaid assignments performed as part of an employer's interview process. Still, there are lines a candidate should never cross. And the decision where those lines fall isn't up to you - it's up to the collective judgment of your professional peers, including teammates and prospective supervisors at your next job.

So, just as the job market is turning up, take care you don't slide into an attitude that could land you not in a new job, but in the penalty box for the duration.

author-card-avatar
AUTHORJon Jacobs Insider Comment
  • Jo
    Jon Jacobs
    17 January 2010

    Mike, a candidate actually should be happy to hear an interviewer (especially a co-owner of the company) launch a meeting "by telling me she wasn't exactly sure what she was looking for, or how the position would be structured, but wanted to hear all about my skills."

    That gives you the best possible opportunity to sell yourself. Coaches have long urged job-seekers (as an alternative to jumping into the deluge of others answering job postings) to seek out target employers and craft your own pitch - positioning yourself as a smart person with a skill-set that meshes well with their core businesses, even if the employer doesn't have an opening they're looking to fill at the moment. That's said to be one of the surest ways to gain entree.

    So it sounds like you may have missed an opportunity by viewing things too narrowly in that particular situation. (Of course, that employer might have been a bad place to work regardless...)

    Here's an illustrative anecdote from a different context, related by a journalism professor. A cub reporter is dispatched to cover the weekly City Council meeting. Less than an hour later, she returns to the office and tells the editor, "I can't file anything; there's no story." Why is there no story?, the editor asks. The reporter replies: "The meeting couldn't take place. There was a fire and City Hall burned down."

    -Jon Jacobs, eFinancialCareers News staff

  • Mi
    Mike
    17 January 2010

    Ah yes. The egomaniac editor in a job interview. I can see it now, Jon. Interesting story. On the other hand, I was just telling someone the other day about the worst HR interviewer I ever encountered. She worked in the HR department at Alliance Bernstein for something like 20 years, I think, and it was apparent that she had made up her mind before I came in for the interview that I had held too many different jobs in the course of my illustrious career. She asked me to tell her about each of my jobs and explain in detail why I left each of them, starting with my first job making $17,000 a year at the weekly newspaper in Hamden, Connecticut. I swear, I was looking for the hidden cameras and waiting for Ashton Kutcher to jump out of the closet. Oh wait, then there was another woman, the co-founder of a financial publishing firm in Sandy Hook, CT who launched the interview by telling me she wasn't exactly sure what she was looking for, or how the position would be structured, but wanted to hear all about my skills. What a waste of time. I could not get out of there quickly enough.

  • Jo
    Jon Jacobs
    31 December 2009

    Mike, Here's a story to rival the anecdote that concluded your comment (the marketing candidates who fail to bring work samples to job interviews).

    Just yesterday I lunched with a marketing hiring manager who described screening a candidate for a senior vice president role some years ago. The candidate asked who on the communications team edits the signed essays that the firm's flagship figure - one of the most successful, famous and respected individuals in the investment world - publishes on the company's Web site. When told the big guy maintains control over his own message and rarely submits to editing, the candidate declared, "Well, if I'm hired that will have to change." It's hard to imagine a clearer way of declaring you don't want the job, without doing something physical such as coming to an interview barefoot, or naked.

    -Jon Jacobs, eFinancialCareers News staff

  • Jo
    Jon Jacobs
    31 December 2009

    J, there's a matter of semantics here. I think both you and the earlier commenter I mentioned in the column misinterpret the hiring manager's "doing nothing for six months" remark by taking it too literally. Instead, I am certain the hiring manager used "doing nothing" as a figure of speech.

    Rather than implying the candidate wasted his time lounging around during those six months, I am certain the hiring manager said "doing nothing" simply as a shorthand for, "not working in his profession". His intended meaning was, not that the unemployed guy is lazy, but that for 6 months he didn't structure or pitch any complex deals, expand his book of paying or potential customers, trade real-time with real money and/or real clients, perform audits, spin a company's financial results for the news media, or perform whatever his usual professional functions are. For that reason, most employers will assume such a candidate is less fresh, hence less valuable, than one who continued to hold a job in his field. I have previously heard headhunters use the phrase "doing nothing" in just this way.

    -Jon Jacobs, eFinancialCareers News staff

  • J
    J
    31 December 2009

    I would be offended if someone said I was doing nothing for six months too. Not because I expect it to count as work experience, but because I know from the last time I was out of work that looking for a job properly is a full-time job in of itself. The comment implies that you are lazy when if fact, the search can be painstaking work.

Sign up to Morning Coffee!

Coffee mug

The essential daily roundup of news and analysis read by everyone from senior bankers and traders to new recruits.

Sign up to Morning Coffee!

Coffee mug

The essential daily roundup of news and analysis read by everyone from senior bankers and traders to new recruits.