Experienced Eye: Company mission statements are meaningless in the cold, hard reality of recruitment

Welcome to the second article from our new candidate blogger "Experienced Eye". He's, well, very experienced in the banking sector and is currently job hunting. Click here to read his first blog. And click here if you'd like to write (anonymously) about your own career on our site.

Should noble ideas be limiting growth? It's a question that is topical in political circles right now, but how does this relate to job hunting and employment prospects? Let me tell you.

I recently saw an advertisement for a role that I was suitably qualified for. I had all the "essential skills" and most, if not all, the "desirable skills" too. The advert didn't mentioned the level it was aimed at, but the job required considerable skills which in reality, could only be gained with experience.

I took that to mean that the role required a person of "maturity". I checked the company's website, read the mission statement about its values and culture, looked at the terms of reference regarding employees and concluded that, yes, I might actually like to work there. How good was that?!

The waiting game

So armed with confidence in my skill set and in a good frame of mind, I applied for the position. Then came the customary wait. I realise HR people are the most important people in the whole wide world (well, so they tell me at dinner parties), but why isn't there an automatic email response in all circumstances?

Why does someone applying for the role have to wonder at times: Did that email get through to the right person, or is my CV sitting in the inbox of a Canadian pharmacist wondering how many fake viagra tablets to dispatch.

A period of time elapsed, and there was still no response from my "new employer". (Look, we all do that, right? We think that the job is ours and the HR department just hasn't got round to rubber stamping the application).

The human touch

I decide to phone the firm and try and speak to a person. A difficult task at times I know. But in this instance it proved not that onerous, and I was soon talking to...a real human who knew about the position and was genuine and sincere.

I'd hit the jackpot, and swelled with pride that my new employer would actually carry out its mission statement regarding its values and culture. It wasn't just posting warm fuzzy messages on its website.

The person said he would get back to me with some information as soon as possible. Again, I waited. Job hunting instils the art of patience if nothing else.

More time elapsed, and my once swollen pride was somewhat deflated, like a balloon a week after the party: not quite utterly bereft, but getting there. So I called the human again and like before, I got through quickly.

Too much experience, no thanks

"Yes, we have reviewed your application," says the real human

"Fantastic, when shall I come in for the orientation?"

"Here at (insert company name) we pride ourselves on our training and mentoring."

"I know, I read your mission statement and liked it, hence my application."

"But in this instance you have more experience than the person sitting above you and mentoring you, so we won't be taking your application further."

This remark got me thinking of my original premise. Why should mentoring and training always be a one-way flow? Why should the insecurity of the mentor be the determining factor of the department?

The obvious outcome of such a policy is that the team will only grow its skill set according to the knowledge and experience of the limiting mentor. How ridiculous is that? I believe a company should actually practice what it preaches as its mission statement. How about you?

"Experience Eye" is a candidate blogger in Australia. The views expressed are his, not those of eFinancialCareers.