Corporate Gamesmanship. Was [Re: What is with recruiters these days?]

"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in message
 news:34ile01t3qifpprov3nk4t23o6la5lr94t@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 08:28:58 +0930, Andrew Gabb <agabb@tpgi.com.au>
> wrote: 
>
> But if they don't lie in the first place, HR never passes the resume
> to you, so what's the point?

Depends on the instructions HR is working under. They may
pass it on, or may not. In any case, HR -will- pass it on if the
person used another avenue to get their name in front of
the hiring manager, and the manager requests HR to follow
up.

Following up the resume by trying to get a call in to the
IT manager or one of the tech leads can be effective.

> Also, honest people never apply in the
> first place, thinking they won't get through, or thinking little of an
> organization that would play such a game.

Partly true. Honesty may keep a person out, -if- he takes
the view that it isn't worth applying (because they won't
get through), or that the entire organization is messed
up because of this defect in the hiring process.
Neither of these is a given fact; different people
would view this different ways.

> I mean, just what kind of people *do* make it through such a process?

A lot of messed up ones, but also honest, persistent people
who don't make snap judgements or give up easily.

> * They applied to a job for which they do not have listed
> qualifications, because either they understand the game, or else
> blindly spam every opening they can find.

And the ability to understand the game is part of what the
organization is looking for. There were a lot of books
written some years ago about understanding corporate
gamesmanship. One point I recall, I think from the book
'Dinosaur Brains', or perhaps 'Neanderthals in the Workplace',
was that those who understand corporate gamesmanship
(which includes the hiring manager and the HR manager)
do not explain the rules because they look down on the
intelligence of those who can't figure them out on their
own.

Which is similar to how many techies feel about teaching
the intricacies of Unix to newbies. It goes back to
valuing the ability to receive clue. In some ways, the HR
people are deliberately filtering out those who give up
too easily or can only consider the direct way through
the maze.

Think of it as an adventure-type game. Probe the various
avenues, test the defenses, look for subtle clues, etc.

This is more cost-effective if you concentrate on companies
you really want to work for rather than those with the
most ads on Monster.

> * They were called in anyway and passed an interview
> and accepted the offer.
>
> And you say, some people do this on purpose?  Hmm.

Yep.

I understand your frustration; I am not someone who is
altogether comfortable with this kind of thing either.
Hence the fact that I have read several 'understanding
corporate gamesmanship' books.

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 15:12:47 GMT, "Ron Ruble" <raffles2@att.net>
wrote: 
>
>And the ability to understand the game is part of what the
>organization is looking for.

I do view "knowing how to play the game" as positive, and meant it so
here.
 
>
>Yep.

I've occassionally run into someone in HR or outside of it who were
aware of what was being done, but it must be very, very rare to find
anyone doing it with full intentionality.

>I understand your frustration; I am not someone who is
>altogether comfortable with this kind of thing either.
>Hence the fact that I have read several 'understanding
>corporate gamesmanship' books.

I really don't think the issue is gamesmanship here in any healthy
sense of the word.  It's good to understand, but just cuz you
understand it, doesn't make it good.

J.