Some times we write for ourselves, sometimes for others. This ERE moldy oldie (5.5.2005) made me snort…
Was at the gym at 6:10 this morning. Grabbed a magazine, hopped on my favorite torture machine, set it on “Delirious”, and away I went. Think I had Linkin Park on the iPod (left the Samsung phone in my car – needed some “quiet” time). Apparently, I had picked up the April issue of Psychology Today and began reading away.
But in the Editor’s Note, there it was…
Ask 10…people about their ideal partner, and you’ll hear from two camps. Woman paint a baroque portrait of their ideal mate; men a lithe, minimalist brushstroke. That is, women want it all: emotional support, a man with a princely paycheck and a sixth sense for her moods. Men are more inclined to think in terms of absence: a hassle-free, non-neurotic chick, one whose wish list is mercifully short.
So I substituted Recruiter for woman, and Candidate for man, changed the concepts just a bit and came up with…
Ask 10…recruiters and people about their ideal candidate and company, and you’ll hear from two camps. Recruiters paint a baroque portrait of the ideal candidate; candidates a lithe, minimalist brushstroke. That is, recruiters want it all: 10 of 10 competencies mandated by the hiring manager, a candidate with a Fortune 50 pedigree and a sixth sense for her corporate culture. Candidates are more inclined to think in terms of absence: a hassle-free, non-neurotic boss, one whose wish list is mercifully short.
Hmmm…
Later in the magazine was a small blurb that wrote of new research indicating that “kissing up to a potential employer may win you more points than boasting about why she or he should hire you.” Essentially, flattery over flaunting wins critical brownie points.
Hmmm…
Sometimes I wish I could just stop thinking about recruiting.
The Recruiting Inferno 