interviewing part 5: perfect for the job

I haven’t written about interviewing for quite some time mostly because I haven’t had anything new to add (my earlier observations in interviewing and the process remain unchanged).

However.

In the past week or so it seems like I have been helping a number of people in the interview process and helping them find jobs which has made me think about my own sporadic ventures into exploring a select few opportunities and the experiences I had as I explored <typically not very pleasant>.

So … if I combine their frustrations and my discussions here is the thought:

Let’s call this one “perfect for the job <or the opportunity>”.

Okay.

How often do you hear of an opportunity or see a job and say ‘I am perfect for that”?

And you just may be <and you just may be … not>.

And I keep talking with people who are frustrated when an interviewer or potential employer just doesn’t see it.

The fall back cry of dismay is  … “How can I get my resume/information seen? They mustn’t have seen it because if they did I would have received the callback/call/offer!”

I usually take a minute to gather myself here before sharing some thoughts (and let them see some steam).

Well.

The odds are they did see it.

In fact the odds are they saw it for all its merits and if you were that perfect you probably made “the stack” (the ones who actually get a second look).

nuance differences

But.

Perfection is in nuances.

What do I mean?

Well.

You really truly may be perfect for the opportunity.

And the rest of the zillion finalist candidates they are reviewing are just really good matches for the opportunity.

Unfortunately the difference is in nuances. And, yes, I mean nuances … NOT ‘clear distinction’ as the issue. Mostly because I tend to believe most of us are getting pretty good at stepping up our “job search game” in a competitive job marketplace and have the ‘how do I make myself look distinct’ pretty down pat.

My point goes back to the fact that the only thing truly unique is your personality. You may have distinct qualifications but rarely are they unique qualifications when lined up with other finalists.

Look.

I have been in a zillion <ok … an exaggeration … many> advertising agency new business finals.

And I cannot tell you how many times we were “perfect” for the opportunity <I can also put a handful up where we were just a really good match but not perfect>.

And I also cannot tell you how many times we were NOT selected despite being perfect.

Yes.

We were perfect for the opportunity.

But in the eyes of the potential employer (client) pretty much everyone of the finalists was “a very very good match” and it comes down to nuances.

Frustrating?

You bet.

So what ? … I mean … c’mon … be serious … what do you do?

The employer didn’t make a choice that was really wrong <other than the fact it wasn’t you>. So arguing or trying to go back and discuss is wasted effort. How do you debate nuances? <answer: you can’t>.

I warn some of the people I talk with about the frustration of ‘nuances’ and how it can lead to incredibly bad interviews and discussions by landing in what I chuckling <painfully> refer to as “the entanglement of nuances.”

entanglement of nuances

This is where discussions get bogged down as you find yourself in “Butland” <not ‘butt’ but … well … ‘but’>.

Huh?

Yeah.

They say something and you say “but” … over and over again.

In your head you can make yourself feel good that you are overcoming objections one by one and … “but by but” <brick by proverbial brick> you are building your case.

Well … sorry … no.

Because you are actually now entangled in nuances.

And like a garden hose or fishing line … once entangled you may as well either throw it away, get ready to throw something out of frustration or simply cut out the knot and start anew.

Anyway.

Even the best, the ‘geniuses’, would struggle to define the nuances in an interview <as I noted in my example in my recent ‘underneath greatness’ post>:

Could you imagine good ole Al sitting there in his rumpled suit and the interviewer asks official question number 4 “please tell me what you think you are good at?” And Al reaches up and tries to smooth down that crazy hair of his, hesitates, and says “well, I have no particular talent, I am merely extremely inquisitive.”

—

<note: cut to interviewer making note to self .. “cut interview short, not ambitious enough, cannot identify any talent, waste of time interviewing.”>

Hey.

Albert’s resume probably looked awesome (c’mon … seriously … how many people have “Nobel Prize” listed in awards?).

He was a finalist for sure.

And Al even made a great attempt at explaining the nuance that could possibly explain the subtle difference between him and the genius behind door number 4 relatively well.

But.

Nuances sometimes cannot be described … only seen by another.

And if they don’t see it you cannot describe it.

Oh.

Warning.

Even if they see it they may not be able to “see it.” (huh?)

Well, look at this:

All incredibly fine guitars. Some incredibly small differences. Some may suggest the purchase decision is in the “nuances.”

Anyway.

I would imagine the point here is to be careful to recognize that while you may be highly qualified for an opportunity the odds of you being absolutely perfect for the opportunity lie within ‘nuances.’

And while I certainly am not suggesting people shouldn’t attempt to highlight the nuances I am suggesting that they are called nuances for a reason. They are, well, nuances.

And sometimes the people you are speaking with will recognize them as important but as likely as not they will hear and toss them into the “well, this person is just as qualified as the last so let’s move on.” And, in addition, constantly focusing on nuances may be more harmful than advantageous.

That’s it.

I have been talking to people a lot about this lately and thought it was worth throwing into the interviewing series discussion.