[If we really wanted to extend the analogy, the seller's going to have to make some concessions in the bidding process and provide more disclosure than what might be legally required in order to sell - I think that's the best way anyway ]

I recently talked about this very thing: if you’re looking for a job – you need to be very specific. There are a lot of people out there just looking for a paycheck to pay the rent. I insist that this is the wrong way to look for employment.

You MUST find a job you will be passionate about. You must be able to stay in that job long-term (or at least long enough for the Employer to break even on the cost of training you, benefits, screening: 1-2 years). To do otherwise is to discredit your own skills and passions for money – and though a lot of situations, including my own at the moment, seem desperate, there is always hope for talented individuals.

Whether we branch out on our own or find a meaningful position, we just can’t settle for “a job”. We need a position in line with our careers.

It’s an unfair situation… but the economy, like most things, is a challenge that we have to face and overcome in order to bring meaning to our lives.

Good luck,

And thank you for writing this article.

-Nick Armstrong
PsychoticResumes.com

Love the analogy! “It’s more like you’re looking for a house with crown molding, a large backyard and a master bathroom with two sinks to avoid having to share with your significant other who does funky things with his/her toothpaste and you have a budget of $X. the real estate agent finds you a place with those amenities, plus a pool and an extra guest room.”

However, this is where we get off track:

“You haven’t specifically specified no pool or a maximum number of rooms, but you presume that your budget won’t accommodate those things. In fact, your agent has found you a place within your budget that has the things you’re looking for, plus some.

Ultimately, it’s up to the job-seeker to convey that they meet the minimum qualifications, but unless a company has a specific reason for not wanting “a pool” or “a guest bedroom,” it seems silly to not consider a candidate with those specific traits or qualifications.”

In the Dear Recruiter blog post that I referenced, he wrote:

As a result of this perception you probably believe in one or more of the following:

1. I will just take your job until something better comes along
2. I will become bored and underperform in the role
3. I may be so good that I could take you job.

I’d like to take a minute to dispel these myths.”

I’m not even going to address #3 because that is another subject entirely. However, regarding #1 and #2, these are real and relevant concerns that employers have. As a recruiter I can validate those concerns because people come to me with those complaints every single day of my life.

It is very expensive to recruit, hire, train, and assimilate a new employee. Estimates I’ve see are as high as 30 percent of position’s salary.

Why would a company knowingly hire someone who is overqualified when they can find someone who is *qualified* – and will find the job somewhat of a challenge – and maybe stick around a little while?

This is not a tight labor market. In a better economy companies do sometimes hire overqualified candidates because they don’t have a lot to choose from. However, right now, that is just not likely to happen. Companies are on high alert now more than ever because they know people are unemployed, want to work, and in some cases will say anything they think will get them the job. They might even believe what they’re saying as they’re saying it. However, we all know that as soon as things turn around – and they will – that person WILL be bored and frustrated and start looking for another job.

Going back to your analogy…in the cases I’m talking about the client has specifically said that they don’t want a pool or a guest house. So if I were a realtor I would not show them houses with pools or guest houses. Call me crazy. Maybe they don’t want the additional upkeep…I don’t know, but it really doesn’t matter because my job is to find my client the they house that they want.

I hope this makes sense, and I appreciate your comment!

Stephanie

I’m not in recruiting or HR, but I’ll throw my interpretation into the mix, understanding that your point about recruiters trying to fulfill a specific need is one to be heavily considered by a job-seeker.

I don’t think it’s like you’re looking for a 3BR and being shown 5BRs. I think that’s too simplistic. It’s more like you’re looking for a house with crown molding, a large backyard and a master bathroom with two sinks to avoid having to share with your significant other who does funky things with his/her toothpaste and you have a budget of $X. the real estate agent finds you a place with those amenities, plus a pool and an extra guest room. You haven’t specifically specified no pool or a maximum number of rooms, but you presume that your budget won’t accommodate those things. In fact, your agent has found you a place within your budget that has the things you’re looking for, plus some.

Ultimately, it’s up to the job-seeker to convey that they meet the minimum qualifications, but unless a company has a specific reason for not wanting “a pool” or “a guest bedroom,” it seems silly to not consider a candidate with those specific traits or qualifications.