@ffoilet not only is your math wrong, your logic is also not very good. All the article is saying is that don't be discouraged from applying for a position you are underqualified because 46% of the time your personality might be enough to get you the job. Sure, if you believe the statistics, 54% you have no chance.

persei7

And the last ten want something else entirely.

notPythias

@ffolliet: 54 percent, even. :)

Bubarubu

er, DON'T break the rules on the basis that "Forty-six percent of executives said (x,y or z)" because that means forty four percent said exactly the opposite!

ffolliet

@persei7: Yeah and honestly, those aren't very telling percentages. It says people can be super up tight and are looking for a cookie cutter machine, whereas, others are looking for a "person" to get in and contribute. I mean it's almost 50/50.

What it comes down to is the type of place you want to work at. If they are so worried about the nonsense that everyone has been saying to do for years then that's not the place for me. I'd rather work for a company that values me as a person - not a number who they just feed cash to get work done.

PatrickTulskie

Forty-six percent of executives said they rely heavily on instinct when making a hiring decision

Translation:

"Forty-six percent of executives don't know what they're doing and guess when making a hiring decision"

sir_eccles

@sir_eccles:
Agreed. You do not want to be working for these companies.

superunlikely

Reading this, it is sad that in our rich economy, there are so many qualified, willing people who are finding it hard to get quality work.

Many of our colleagues get so many resumes that they only glance at them for a few seconds.

In terms of interviews, many lean towards candidates that they can empathize with and who remind them of someone positive they have had a good relationship with in the past. Perhaps that is what is meant by instinct

Advertising Guru

On the other hand, this article could be construed as self-promotion by careerbuilder.com - the more resume's you submit (whether you're qualified or not), the better their stats look!

bobbo33

For any sizable company, the HR department (or recruiter) has already done a first-pass sort based on minimum skill level. Thus, the hiring manager is safe in assuming that every candidate can do the job - the primary reason for the interview is to see if the personality fits.

So to the point of this article, I agree with the survey: an experienced "executive" should focus on personality, ethics, and other soft-skills. But I disagree with the article's conclusion: if you don't meet the minimum qualifications, you'll never even get your foot in the door.

bobbo33

@bobbo33: "Thus, the hiring manager is safe in assuming that every candidate can do the job..."

Assuming that HR is able to make that sort. That's usually a pretty big assumption in my experience.

This article motivates me to apply for that airline pilot job I've always wanted.

edosan

As if CareerBuilder actually had any knowledge in the field of job searching. Excuse me I have to go respond to offers about exciting opportunities where I set my own income.

SabrinaFaire

the 46% rule only applies to jobs in management, media, public relations.....etc etc

trust me...I'm from Human Resources....I'm here to help

muddypaws

@sir_eccles: It is not necessarily that the instinctual executives don't know what they are doing. How do you know their hires don't turn out to be better employees?

AnitaHecate

This is one of my pet topics. Too many job applicants - especially recent grads - are so afraid that they won't get a job that they forget that when you're looking for work, the process is a two way street.

Employers are looking for the right person to fill their opening, and you are looking for the right job for you!. Too often, people forget the second part of that formula.

Don't be afraid to let your resume reflect who you are and what you need to be happy at work. And when you go into a job interview, remember that not only is the employer interviewing you, but you're there to find out if this company is someplace where you're going to want to spend eight hours a day, five days a week for the next few years of your life.

If you want to be a drone, slaving away at something you don't like and living for the weekend, then fine. Forget this part of it. But if you want to be somebody who enjoys what you do and sometimes even looks forward to going to work, don't let a company decide to hire you until you've decided you want to hire them to be your employers! Don't be afraid to wait tables for a while longer before you find something that's right for you.

And while I'm at it, here's my other favorite thing about employment: Don't be afraid to change jobs or even careers. A couple of times in my life, I've lost jobs only to discover that it was the best thing that could have happened to me! I can tell you from personal experience that you'll be a much happier and better rounded old man or woman some day if your work experience consists of a whole lot more than just finding your rut after college and climbing in!

stubear

I'm a 23 year old college dropout, and the only way I've ever landed a job is by breaking the rules.

Hiring managers don't usually notice me because my resume is filled to the brim with applicable experience and education, they like me because my cover letter is intriguing and I got lucky three years ago and got promoted to a software QA management position.

Even that promotion I didn't get by playing by all the rules. I moved from LAN Administrator to QA Lead because I worked hard, circumvented the rules that didn't work and got the job done, my way.

My rule of thumb is get noticed, even if that is for going against the grain. You still have to be effective of course, but if your maverick tendencies work, they are an advantage.

(and thank you lifehacker for the job search posts of late. I'm in the middle of one, and they have offered wonderfully valuable insight, whether I agreed or not.)

phool

@stubear:
I think that most people don't have enough money between jobs not to be desperate to find something. It's also usually pretty hard to surreptitiously job hunt if you're currently employed 9 to 5.

So people don't usually have the luxury of going through a months-long process to find a good fit for them.

That said, though, I completely agree with your sentiment. Finding a job IS a two-way street. It's not "them hiring you", it's a mutual relationship. If it's ever sour for either party, the relationship can be terminated. I really hate the sentiment that you're at the whims of your employer. When it comes right down do it, the only definite thing your employer can make you do is leave.

Unfortunately, there are too many people looking for jobs, and the attitude these days is that everyone is expendable. Even though a truly GOOD employee is hard to find, a lot of HR people and hiring managers just think in terms of a warm body to replace you. I feel fortunate to work for a business small enough they they still regard their employees as people, and not machines to be replaced when they're "faulty".

Arterion

If the job is one thats perfect for you then you need to apply for it even if you don't meet the full experience or qualifications. That doesn't mean you go out and apply for that airline pilot's job that you are totally unqualified for because that would never be a perfect fit.

The listed experience and minimum qualifications are often somewhat arbitrary and intended to encourage certain types candidates and discourage others in order to increase the odds of attracting ideal candidates and decrease the odds of pulling in large numbers of candidates who are less likely to be a good fit. While that can work at a general level in targeting the outreach, it is less likely to be relevant in evaluating individual exceptional candidates who are a perfect fit for the job, even though they fall a bit short of the minimum qualifications.

In the end, if I have to choose between two identical candidates, one of which follows the minimum qualifications rule and doesn't apply, and the other one who breaks it and does apply, I'll always choose the one who breaks the rule and applies over the other one who I never have the opportunity to find out about. ;-)

pico

In my experience (interviewing lots of applicants over many years and drafting job requirements on a few occasions) it may be helpful to keep in mind the differences between defining a set of job requirements and interviewing applicants.

The job requirements get defined up front when the job is created and may not end up being revised ever again. The requirements may be defined by people who never do any of the interviewing and may be based on preconceived notions and preferences that may be unrealistic or unfounded. The requirements may reflect an (over)reaction to past experiences or an effort to (over)reach for a pool of more qualified candidates. Whatever the specific circumstances, the point is that these decisions are being made early on in the process, possibly in a vacuum, and certainly before information is available about the actual pool of candidates.

At the other end of the process, when applicants are being interviewed, candidates are compared to each other more than they are being compared to the minimum posting requirements.

The real trick for an applicant is getting past the paper review when applications are being weeded out to arrive at a manageable number for interviewing. The easiest way to weed out is to compare them against the qualifications and that may be all that occurs during the first cut, especially if that first cut is farmed out to someone as an administrative task.

In the end, I think the most helpful message for candidates is the one that this article highlights: if the job is perfect for you, then you should apply for it and put yourself in the running, even if it seems to break the rules. What do you have to lose?

picocofico

@foillet: DO break the rules. If you don't apply for a job because you don't have the relevant experience, it's 100% positive you won't get the job. If however you do go ahead and apply, 1 in 2 executives would consider you.

bargain100

Hmm... I disagree about the 46% Exec's not knowing what they're doing. I've worked in several large corps (E&Y, ABSA Bank) and not only have my interviews not been very long, but I've also been hired after the very first Interview.

Having said that, I think it's also important to point out that I have a degree in Software Development, and never worked in the IT department of those companies (Ernst & Young was working for National Tax: Global Tax Operations and then moved into the UK Financial Services Audit Centre).

So I can definitely see how there is a 'gut-feel' effect!

Garatheus

@persei7:

@bargain100:

actually, if you read what i said, it was not to break the rules on the basis of half the executives thinking one way or other rather than NOT about not applying at all.

and as to question logic when the answer suggests such even odds; just toss a coin. or better still ignore it.

i actually feel you apply for what you want, in the way you want and that articles offer "faux science" as facts are just filling space, not providing useful information.

my bad on the maths tho'- lucky i don't need mental arithmetic much eh?

ffolliet