Honesty in job advertising is a nice theory but not a practical reality, writes Jim Bright.
I want to respond to Geoff Nash, who wrote in The Sydney Morning Herald, "Now I've cracked the code" (May 9, 2011).
In his piece, Nash shared his frustrations with what he sees as the widespread lying that goes on by job applicants and employers when applying for and advertising positions.
He wrote: "This is the way I think it works: employers are using words to describe people who don't exist, forcing job seekers to lie about themselves to be in with a chance. When the applications come in, employers narrow them down to the lies that most closely resemble their own and hire the liar they like the most."
I empathise with Nash's frustrations; indeed, Jo Earl and I have a section in one of my job-hunting books called "They must want Superman!"
The briefest of scans of MyCareer yielded a job ad with the following requirements (among others): "Advanced interpersonal skills, a high degree of energy and enthusiasm and an honest approach with the clients."
Advanced interpersonal skills? What exactly does that entail and how is it measured? Are good interpersonal skills not enough? I am not sure I've met someone with advanced interpersonal skills. Would their presence be felt as a warm, charismatic glow before they entered the room?
The problem with these enthusiastic job advertisements is that people like Nash either get put off or intimidated by them. I know many job hunters who rule themselves out of applying for roles because they do not think they stack up. Indeed, if you believe you are wonderful with advanced interpersonal skills and make the mistake of saying so publicly, you run the risk of being run out of town. Our culture does not encourage such immodesty.
So, what is the solution? Well, Nash suggests a return to honesty: realistic job advertisements and honest self-appraisals from the applicants. This suggestion overlooks one thing: it won't work. Who is going to budge first, the employer or the applicant?
In a competitive hiring market, which company is going to be brutally honest about its requirements and expectations before the others? If an employer says it wants a person "who is pretty average to fit in with the other losers we employ", how will present staff react to that demotivating message? There are too many reasons for employers to gild the lily for realistic job previews to be, well, realistic.
My main concern, though, is that Nash gives voice to an instinct many job hunters have and that is to adopt this philosophy: "I know you, the employer, are not perfect and you know I am not perfect, so let's roll up our sleeves and have an honest discussion about the role."
While it is an understandable instinct, it is generally career suicide to adopt it. The other candidates for the role will focus on their strengths and minimise discussion of or the impact of their weaknesses. And employers will be impressed by them.
Study after study shows that impression-management tactics work. They work for the same reason humans always get duped: because they want to believe what they are hearing. When they have also been instrumental in setting out what they want to hear, it is doubly persuasive.
Recruitment is like Munchkin Land in The Wizard of Oz; everything is smaller or larger than life and shown in Technicolor. This place is quite unlike the realities of Kansas but it is a place we have to go through to meet the wonderful wizard who hands out the jobs.
Yes, it can feel odd skipping down the Yellow Brick Road but if you go off track, you'll be eaten by the lions, tigers and bears.
Jim Bright is professor of career education and development at ACU and a partner at Bright and Associates, a career management consultancy. Email marked clearly "FOR PUBLICATION" to brightside@jimbright.com.