Reading between the lines
So I've recently begun letting a couple of people know that if, you know, something promising came up, I wouldn't be totally opposed to at least, you know, talking to someone about a potential job opportunity. So I've gotten on some people's distribution lists, and most of the openings aren't exactly aligned with what I can or want to do, but I'm always grateful when people think of me.
Especially, as today, when one of the qualities listed as essential to the incumbent is, "Emotionally stable."
Which I'm not sure fits me right now in any case, but to list it as an explicit prerequisite for employment? Makes me think that the person no longer occupying the position had some sort of nervous breakdown, which sort of would not entice me to apply for said position. First, if it really was a personal issue, who wants to be introduced as, "This is Tangent Woman, the new [insert crazy person's name here]"? But, really, isn't it equally likely that the position, or the organization, drove that person to emotional instability?
A couple of years ago, we were looking to fill a position here, and I still have an email from one interviewer's assessment of one of the candidates, who broke down crying in the middle of the interview because she still wasn't over her divorce, and she felt so much pressure and didn't know if she could deal with such a stressful job.
So, of course, emotional stability counts for something; even if it's not an explicit criterion, of course someone who's so on the edge isn't a viable candidate for a position that requires one to multitask and keep it together under pressure. But that's one of those things that the "including but not limited to" clause ought to cover.
Maybe I do need to go work for this organization, because they clearly need some communications help. Although I may not be smart enough, because they noted that the salary would be "commensurate with experience, but not munificent," and I had to look up that last word.
I'm screwed, aren't I, with this job search thing?
Especially, as today, when one of the qualities listed as essential to the incumbent is, "Emotionally stable."
Which I'm not sure fits me right now in any case, but to list it as an explicit prerequisite for employment? Makes me think that the person no longer occupying the position had some sort of nervous breakdown, which sort of would not entice me to apply for said position. First, if it really was a personal issue, who wants to be introduced as, "This is Tangent Woman, the new [insert crazy person's name here]"? But, really, isn't it equally likely that the position, or the organization, drove that person to emotional instability?
A couple of years ago, we were looking to fill a position here, and I still have an email from one interviewer's assessment of one of the candidates, who broke down crying in the middle of the interview because she still wasn't over her divorce, and she felt so much pressure and didn't know if she could deal with such a stressful job.
So, of course, emotional stability counts for something; even if it's not an explicit criterion, of course someone who's so on the edge isn't a viable candidate for a position that requires one to multitask and keep it together under pressure. But that's one of those things that the "including but not limited to" clause ought to cover.
Maybe I do need to go work for this organization, because they clearly need some communications help. Although I may not be smart enough, because they noted that the salary would be "commensurate with experience, but not munificent," and I had to look up that last word.
I'm screwed, aren't I, with this job search thing?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home