From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard )
Subject: CHALLENGING jobs - Was: Advice from a hiring manager on resumes
Keywords: advice challenge resume
Followups-To: misc.jobs.misc
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 18:14:57 GMT

***------------------------------------------------------------------------***
*** This followup is crossposted to .offered and .misc to draw people over ***
*** Please make all subsequent followups ONLY to the misc.jobs.misc group  ***
***------------------------------------------------------------------------***

afisher@netcom.com (Alan Fisher) writes:
> 3. 95 percent of resumes have the following objective:
> 	I am looking for a CHALLENGING position in .....
> Do you know of an employer who thinks he/she is offering a non-challenging
> position? Just put a simple objective like "A position as a software engineer

I originally replied by e-mail and let this one pass as supporting it, but
having slept on it, I now have come to the conclusion there is a problem
here.  Leaving out an objective still might be the simple solution.

However I must disagree with the notion that most positions are CHALLENGING!
I assume we are talking about TECHNICALLY challenging (as opposed to things
like politically challenging).

Perhaps all employers THINK the positions they offer are challenging.  If
they do, then the error is on their part.  As evidence that a substantial
number of positions are NOT challenging, I simply point to the fact that
most employers are currently specifying requirements of extensive and
narrowly focused experience.  Namely, if you have NOT ALREADY done this
same exact job for the past 5 year on the same exact platform, then they
don't want to hire you.  They are not trying to offer you a challenging
position, they are JUST trying to IMPORT experience.

OK, just what *IS* a CHALLENGING position?

This is going to be different for a lot of people.  The software development
field has a lot more challenges to it than most others, for instance.  My own
perception tells me that there is greater technical challenge in totally new
development (as opposed to porting existing programs to new platforms).

But there are other fields as well, and there are both challenging and
interesting jobs, as well as boring and humdrum jobs, in each field.

To me, a major factor in the CHALLENGE of a job is the learning factor.
If there is an opportunity to learn and apply something new, then this is
a CHALLENGING JOB.  This is the kind of job I want.  There are probably
many other factors that make a job challenging.  I also find it a challenge
to find the exact configuration that makes things work exactly right.  But
that is probably learning as well.

I do *NOT* want a job where I will do the same exact thing I have been doing
for the past 5 years.  If I wanted to keep on doing it, why change jobs?
Perhaps most jobs *ARE* challenging to SOMEONE.  But would the employer
REALLY want to hire people who really would find that job challenging?
Apparently this is *NOT* the case in the current job market, as most
position announcements clearly show in their narrow experience requirements.

However, Mr. Fisher, or is that Mr. Mohiuddin, does say that employers BELIEVE
their jobs are challenging.  So simply stating that you want a CHALLENGING job
is still stating what the employer will THINK is the obvious.  What people
probably need to do is figure out just exactly what they can say that will
trigger the "hot button" in the hiring managers of those jobs which are truly
the kinds of things you want to do, and not trigger it in the others.

Constructive followups, especially from hiring managers, is most certainly
welcome.

One thing I would like to ask of hiring managers is this:

If you are faced with two candidates for a position (although in today's
market this is more likely to be two hundred) where:

    candidate(s) A can do the job in their sleep, and their past experience
    of doing exactly the same thing for the past however many years it has
    even existed shows this

    candidate(s) B have never done this exact job before, but have perhaps
    done related jobs, and have the "gung ho" attitude to learn and apply
    new things in this job

which will you choose?  Remember nearly everyone is (apparently) passing over
candidates B these days.  Are you an exception?  Are you going to make this
job a truly challenging opportunity for someone, or are you going to just
try to import the greatest amount of experience?

Maybe people should put on their resume:

Objective:      An income

But I suppose no one trusts an honest person these days.  <-- .sig material
-- 
/***********************************************************************\
| Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  pdh@netcom.com   |   "The problem with |
| depending on government is that you cannot depend on it" - Tony Brown |
\***********************************************************************/
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.offered