Re: From appalled to galled

["Staples, Lorrie" <Lorrie -dot- Staples -at- NEXTEL -dot- COM>]

Andrew Plato wrote:

<snip> You can be tactful and diplomatic yet still make it clear to
someone
why they are not the best candidate. I do not think it is a waste of
time one bit to tell someone at the end of a interview why I do not
think they would work out.

REAL-LIFE CRITIQUE: "Dan, you have great writing skills and your
experience with UNIX is a real asset.  However, I am concerned that
you did bring any samples with you, as I asked." </snip>

****LORRIE'S REPLY:

Am I the only one here that noticed a "serious change" in the tone of
Andrew's wording (with regard to how he would treat the applicant during
the interview) here & his first post about this subject??  . . . maybe
that abrasiveness is wearing down . . . <smile>

Andrew, we really like you, ok?  You have so much insight to offer, but
has anyone ever told you that the intent can be the best, but if the
delivery of it really reeks, then the intent will be lost?  I think
that's what happened with this thread.


<snip> Moreover, this has nothing to do with "control" or "creative
environments" as some people have suggested.  The stark reality is: a
truly creative and innovative environment is almost always staffed
with bright, professional people who would never even THINK of
applying for a job without meeting the basic requirements of the job
posting, like "send a resume AND cover letter." </snip>

****LORRIE'S REPLY:

Andrew, you've STILL missed my point here!  I had NO PROBLEM with the
idea that, if they ask for samples/cover letter/salary history, etc.,
you should acknowledge the request in your response, either by supplying
or giving a valid reason why you'll comply later.  It was how you said
you would treat the person during the interview & (it almost sounded
gleeful & proud the way you wrote it) use it to low-ball them on salary.
(Actually sounded to me like you were hopeful that they WOULDN'T comply,
just so you could get maximum "bang" for minimum "buck".)


<snip>If you can't play ball with the pros, go back to the minors.
</snip>

****LORRIE'S REPLY:

This just shows me what great people-handling skills you seem to have -
- You don't even know the first thing about me or my work ability, so
why make a judgment call like that?  I happen to be "playing with the
pros" just fine, thank you, and my paycheck can attest to that.  Just
because you don't wish to see things from anyone else's point of view,
you don't need to attack people personally (like I've seen you do
several times) in order to have the last word.  It doesn't speak any
more highly of you, believe me!

It all goes back to what I said at the top of this response - - the
delivery matters.  Some of your posts are wonderful - - in fact, the one
about getting paid to do documentation for people who are friends was
very good.  I printed that one out for keeps, since I do work on the
side building webpages for small businesses. I needed to know that one.
The pontification ones you put out are just that - - pontification.


<snip> Okay, that's it.  Now get back to work before we fire you for
writing
these stupid posts! </snip>

****LORRIE'S REPLY:

Since when did we put YOU in charge?? <I'm not insulted, just yanking
your chain>  And the "stupid posts" comment - - well, *YOU* took the
bait on this one - - twice!! <grin>

Have a great day!!

Lorrie Staples
Technical Writer, Lead
NEXTEL Communications Inc.
Norcross, GA

Lorrie -dot- Staples -at- nextel -dot- com

Strive for excellence, not perfection . . . it makes life a little
easier to get through . . .


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=