The Ol' Box Checks Of Hiring

I can avoid belaboring this one, but let’s just go through a couple of stories and terms here fast.

“Culture fit” is the most common reason people get rejected from jobs — assuming any feedback is even provided about the rejection — and that’s completely logical. Because “culture” is not a well-defined work concept, the idea of “culture fit” can mean anything, including “You’re not white” and/or “We didn’t like the sound of your voice during the interview.” It can also mean “We had the best friend of the girlfriend of the founder want the job at the 11th hour.” It can mean a lot of things. Most words that mean a lot of things, which we call “suitcase words” because they carry multiple definitions, ultimately end up meaning nothing. Work has tons of those words: culture, engagement, mission, vision, purpose, etc. “Culture fit” is just another one of those.

Inane rules: I was recently talking to this company called NASCO, which appears to be a subsidiary of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. I had some good interviews with them. We talked about true crime, the University of Georgia, storytelling, etc. It was nice! Well, last Sunday, in between cleaning my house, I posted something on LinkedIn and I alluded to how long and tedious my own current job search is. I tagged some “good people” that I’ve met along the way, including NASCO. They didn’t like that post, apparently. (Unclear why.) A recruiter I know told me it had “bad grammar,” which it didn’t. Anyway — I sent an email to the hiring manager and apologized for the post. I deleted said post. Now the hiring manager didn’t like the email (LOL), so I got piped from that job. Basically I tried to praise the company for treating candidates the right way (good?) and I then tried to apologize to the hiring manager for whatever she perceived (good?) and both fell flat and I missed the opportunity.

A few more examples.

Ultimately hiring is supposed to be about filling key operational roles and getting the right people in the right seats. It feels like too often, hiring is a mess of a box-check, organized by people who don’t exactly know what they’re looking for, and rooted in a lot of rules and assumptions that no one keyed you in on. That doesn’t seem like the path to “A-Players,” does it?

Now, of course you can read this and think “This kid is bitching because he’s a flawed candidate,” and you’d be partially right. I am complaining a bit, and I am a flawed candidate, and it’s been hard for me of late to get steady work. That all sucks, and I am a bit disappointed and angry about it. However, this experience with unclear, analysis paralysis, low-context, drawn-out, assessments-for-no-reason hiring processes is the same that everyone else I talk to also reports.

I know we’re pushing towards automation above all and less and less human jobs, but … could we maybe improve this a bit before we go over the final cliff?