And just like that it's gone !!

[BigDL]

I like this response Stef.

 

So first let me say if it comes across as old fashioned boss type be gratefull for anything we give them, that is not the case. That is not the attitude that is behind the dumbfounded comment at all. It relates to the response of one individual, not all responses.

 

Any interviewee should be thankful (maybe that is the wrong word), possibly for being granted an interview, in other words an opportunity to sell their skills. Is that not what a first round of interviews is about? Selling your skills? Once you have sold your skills and you can see the company wants those skills and there is a bit of synergy between you and the company then you can start the negotiation of what the company can do for you if they want your skill set.

 

Or am I missing something?

 

Forkie (post above) mentions company fit and verbalised it better than me.

I would also challenge the premise that every interviewee should be grateful for the opportunity to interview. In this world where, as is demonstrated by some of the comments above, good talent is so hard to come by, I believe we should also be grateful that the interviewee is considering bringing their talents to our organisation.

[BigDL]

Gonna dive in here. I've written and seen a lot said about how employers have to cater to millennials. My response is always...uhhhh whaaat? Those and any other little Fokkers should fit into the way things are done now already. Wasn't it like that when you started your career? I don't recall having people falling over themselves to lick my nethers because I was the latest, greatest, newest-fangled Gen X cruising into the workplace. Nah mate, I had to cut my hair, adjust my attitude and knuckle down, or be on my way...

That sounds similar to what they tried to say at school when I was in standard six to justify matrics treating us like ****.

[stefmeister]

I like this response Stef.

 

So first let me say if it comes across as old fashioned boss type be gratefull for anything we give them, that is not the case. That is not the attitude that is behind the dumbfounded comment at all. It relates to the response of one individual, not all responses. 

 

Any interviewee should be thankful (maybe that is the wrong word), possibly for being granted an interview, in other words an opportunity to sell their skills. Is that not what a first round of interviews is about? Selling your skills? Once you have sold your skills and you can see the company wants those skills and there is a bit of synergy between you and the company then you can start the negotiation of what the company can do for you if they want your skill set.

 

Or am I missing something?

 

Forkie (post above) mentions company fit and verbalised it better than me.

 

I tried to be subtle with my wording without accusing you of the above, but rather that that perception could come across.

Obviously there are a lot of crap candidates out there vying for the position and it's best to filter out those as soon as possible. 

But I've seen it all too often where a job is advertised and the requirements are as long as that of a CEO position, but the job description and remuneration itself is too vague.

Going to interviews cost time and money. People have to put in leave, and potentially travel far as well for job interviews, and it gets more difficult the lower you are in the food chain. To go through a screening and a further 2 "compatibility" interviews only to learn that the job does not live up to your expectations is just a waste of everyone's time. 

If I were to go for an interview I'd want to know the seniority of that position and the pay before I even send a CV, let alone go for the second interview. And if they can't sell said position to a person it most likely means that they're just looking for the cheapest candidate and not the best possible one.

[RocknRolla]

I am in the office interior industry, we deal with a lot of change management, due to certain companies going through major changes (cellular offices into open plan, executives sitting in open plan etc)

 

It is the way of the future, and the way "we work is changing on a yearly basis"

 

Like out education system (who in my opinion is not equipping youngsters for the new working world), some companies are stuck on the archaic ways of "corner office" status, and little empires within the office.

 

Times are a changing.

[BigDL]

I agree that the pendulum has swung the other way. I think there are a few things that contribute to this. I’m not sure though that it’s the right long term solution. But then again, seems many businesses are not or cannot plan for the long term anymore.

 

Back in the day, it was common for individuals to only work for one or two companies their whole lives. Whether this was due to it being a government job or not there were benefits in staying around. Pension plans in my mind the biggest. As a company would look after you long after you retire. Then there was a set and strict regime in place to govern promotions and your rise up through the company.

 

Today, it’s all about big money. Companies want to make big and so do individuals. This has lead to different thoughts and strategies. One of these has been that “happy” workers are better workers thus will make us more money. In putting this into action things like “employee satisfaction surveys” and other “put the employee first” tools have shifted the power from employer to employee. The employee now calls the shots to a degree and has way more power than before.

 

I think this worked at first. But the lazy nature of the human-being and lack of controlling the strategy has lead to underperforming greedy staff than feel entitled and valuable just because they rock up to work everyday. Then we add to this the complexity around who we can hire based on sex, race, age, qualifications etc and we end up with a workforce that is just not up to scratch in many instances.

Interesting point about “happy” workers and the strategy not working. I would be genuinely interested in examples of where this has not worked.

 

I can think of a few examples where it has worked. A few that come to mind would be Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook. They seem to be doing ok with the strategy.

[Benjamin]

yes - but why shouldnt it be? our generation just bent over while supplying the vaseline. I really take my hat off to the youngsters who are willing to question the status quo and improve it

It’s not that Work can’t be enjoyable. But getting up early and reporting for duty day after day after day isn’t ever as much fun as surfing , or watching series or whatsapping your mates. That’s the reality of life and work in any generation. Can’t buy the pronutro , or the designer Vodka without the paycheck

[Slowbee]

I would also challenge the premise that every interviewee should be grateful for the opportunity to interview. In this world where, as is demonstrated by some of the comments above, good talent is so hard to come by, I believe we should also be grateful that the interviewee is considering bringing their talents to our organisation.

Yes and no.

 

Perhaps grateful is not the word. But when you get an interview, you should recognise the you have been presented with an opportunity at the cost of someone else.

 

And yes, the company should recognise the skill set on offer, but in a first round of interviews, does the granting of an interview not already represent that recognition ?

 

Subsequent rounds (so called shortlisting) are a different kettle of fish.

[RocknRolla]

Interesting point about “happy” workers and the strategy not working. I would be genuinely interested in examples of where this has not worked.

 

I can think of a few examples where it has worked. A few that come to mind would be Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook. They seem to be doing ok with the strategy.

 

on the broad, yes, however their staff retention is dismal.

 

Our company ( a small one) tried the "keep everyone happy" one big family approach, and it backfired. There is a thin line between being so open minded (that your brain falls out) and progressive, that people start taking advantage of the situation. Which then meant a sudden "clamp down" to get peeps back on track.

 

Rules are extremely important, and it has to be clearly defined, yes it will be questioned, and being questioned is not an attempt to undermine authority, it's the foundation of change and new ideas. How an authoritative person handles the questions is another matter all together.

[BigDL]

i work for a German company. if you think the millenials in SA are out there - you should see the young Germans. they have no problem questioning and arguing with the the CEO of the company. they see it as their right. I love it! I believe all authority should be questioned all the time. this generation will change the way we do things.

The older I get, and the more I am exposed to leaders in business, the more I realise that there is no special intelligence or brainpower that you suddenly get when you are promoted. Of course experience counts, but it can also cause you to avoid innovation because you think you know the best way to get something done. Some of the best innovation I have seen has come from some young millennial pushing back when someone says “we do it this way because it’s always been done this way”. I love it when someone asks me why we are doing something a certain way, because it forces me to really understand rather than just do.

[BigDL]

on the broad, yes, however their staff retention is dismal.

 

Our company ( a small one) tried the "keep everyone happy" one big family approach, and it backfired. There is a thin line between being so open minded (that your brain falls out) and progressive, that people start taking advantage of the situation. Which then meant a sudden "clamp down" to get peeps back on track.

 

Rules are extremely important, and it has to be clearly defined, yes it will be questioned, and being questioned is not an attempt to undermine authority, it's the foundation of change and new ideas. How an authoritative person handles the questions is another matter all together.

Be keen to understand how their staff retention is dismal?

[RocknRolla]

Be keen to understand how their staff retention is dismal?

 

They attract the right talent, however, their project requirements and deadlines does not always fit into normal working hours, thus the kids look for greener pastures and less stressful  environments. I have seen the same at some of the advertising firms we have worked with. Even some of the corporates have larger turnover when it comes to employing younger staff.

 

Edit:

 

I think the culture of being rewarded for dedication is an old school ideology that was taught by our parents, and it's not the case anymore. We want it from our employees, but the younger employees sees it differently, and they are not scared to experiment with different companies and positions to find the right fit.

 

anyway, I have serious brainfog, and am packing up to go home now, so my posts may not be all that sensible

[Shebeen]

Please, as a moderator on this forum set a good example and stick to the original topic.

 

You have been warned, but without the bragging point!

exactly, let's get it back onto one of the other 5 thread hijacks now!

 

https://www.strava.com/activities/2413255396

 

the kid can actually run!

A 17:04 5km at altitude puts him in contention for a very decent half marathon time.

 

assuming his feet can last the distance

[Slowbee]

I tried to be subtle with my wording without accusing you of the above, but rather that that perception could come across.

Obviously there are a lot of crap candidates out there vying for the position and it's best to filter out those as soon as possible. 

But I've seen it all too often where a job is advertised and the requirements are as long as that of a CEO position, but the job description and remuneration itself is too vague.

Going to interviews cost time and money. People have to put in leave, and potentially travel far as well for job interviews, and it gets more difficult the lower you are in the food chain. To go through a screening and a further 2 "compatibility" interviews only to learn that the job does not live up to your expectations is just a waste of everyone's time. 

If I were to go for an interview I'd want to know the seniority of that position and the pay before I even send a CV, let alone go for the second interview. And if they can't sell said position to a person it most likely means that they're just looking for the cheapest candidate and not the best possible one.

Wasting peoples time is the worst thing. And I dont like it. It speaks badly of the company if we waste peoples time. Especially as you say, down the food chain. It is incredibly disrespectful and insulting. But another topic.

 

Before any interview, pay bracket is discussed so you know what you are in for, as are hours and a basic job description. So these are already done before we go into setting up an interview. Our interviews last anywhere between 1.5 to 2 hrs, so we usually take candidates for lunch. It just forms part of the process. We talk about everything the company does and what we expect and can the candidate perform in that space during the interview.

 

But when my health is back up to 90% I will have to come to your part of the world for a ride and a drink. Sounds like it could be an interesting conversation. Unless you ride to fast. Then you will be talking to yourself.

[BigDL]

on the broad, yes, however their staff retention is dismal.

 

Our company ( a small one) tried the "keep everyone happy" one big family approach, and it backfired. There is a thin line between being so open minded (that your brain falls out) and progressive, that people start taking advantage of the situation. Which then meant a sudden "clamp down" to get peeps back on track.

 

Rules are extremely important, and it has to be clearly defined, yes it will be questioned, and being questioned is not an attempt to undermine authority, it's the foundation of change and new ideas. How an authoritative person handles the questions is another matter all together.

There is a difference between just keeping everyone happy and keeping them as happy as possible without lowering expectations. Just because you look after someone does not mean that you don’t expect them to do their job. Our company really looks after their staff and has a real culture of inquisitiveness and feedback, with no holy cows when it comes to criticism. However, we have a huge performance expectation that goes alongside that and very little tolerance for poor performance.

[Odinson]

exactly, let's get it back onto one of the other 5 thread hijacks now!

 

https://www.strava.com/activities/2413255396

 

the kid can actually run!

A 17:04 5km at altitude puts him in contention for a very decent half marathon time.

 

assuming his feet can last the distance

 

Jirr! That toe! 

 

That's pretty damn rapid and he did it kaalvoet nogal. 

[WrightJnr]

Be keen to understand how their staff retention is dismal?

Of course I don’t have the facts. But then who of us on a bike forum actually do. LOL.

 

My reference point is this. I’m 22 years in the I.T business. All 22 in 2 different Global businesses. I’ve interviewed 100’s of candidates over the last decade. For various roles and levels.

 

The Googles, Facebooks etc, who are in the game of creating illusions of fun as a business it’s not surprising they know how to market themselves as great employers. Sure, there are many there that are happy. But many that are not (working hours, deadlines, competitiveness etc.). We interview the latter all the time.

 

But it also depends on what you consider “good retention”. Is it 5 years? 10 years? 2 years?

 

By looking at the ave age of the employee at those firms it’s a quick maths calculation to figure out how long people stay there.