Job Hunting

[Guest David Oldfields Gate]

27 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

My mantra has always been to employ someone who is more intelligent than you. If they are in your team and working for you, it will make your job a lot easier. 
 

It leaves you to focus on the decision making. Quite a lot won’t do this as conflicts with their ego. 
 

Someone told me this gem when I was a nipper and I’ve never looked back. 

I agree with this. Surround yourself with winners.

[Mickyblueeyes]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

My mantra has always been to employ someone who is more intelligent than you. If they are in your team and working for you, it will make your job a lot easier. 
 

It leaves you to focus on the decision making. Quite a lot won’t do this as conflicts with their ego. 
 

Someone told me this gem when I was a nipper and I’ve never looked back. 

This, absolutely this. I was also told this when I was a junior and it was some of the best advice I received. 

 

Get someone who challenges you (in a good way). You will not only benefit but improve many aspects of your own "game". 

 

Being the smartest person in the room is always a bad thing. 

[Lako42]

1 hour ago, David Oldfields Gate said:

I agree with this. Surround yourself with winners.

Avoid the KP

[Daggers]

17 minutes ago, Lako42 said:

Avoid the KP

He meant, surround yourself with whingers 

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

My mantra has always been to employ someone who is more intelligent than you. If they are in your team and working for you, it will make your job a lot easier. 
 

It leaves you to focus on the decision making. Quite a lot won’t do this as conflicts with their ego. 
 

Someone told me this gem when I was a nipper and I’ve never looked back. 

I think it’s also unrealistic though. A lot of the time those more intelligent than the role your in will leave quite quickly because it’s easier for them to find better jobs and sometimes the candidates just aren’t there during the hiring process: 

[grobyfox1990]

4 hours ago, Sampson said:

I think it’s also unrealistic though. A lot of the time those more intelligent than the role your in will leave quite quickly because it’s easier for them to find better jobs and sometimes the candidates just aren’t there during the hiring process: 

IMO not so, 'smart' people can apply themselves to their job or specificity very well. Different ball game when you are expected to win business, keep external relations happy, communicate effectively to the Board/NEDs/investors, solve all HR matters, integrate new systems and processes, lead teams where you have no experience, open a new service/business line, oversee an international service/office, create a network, be responsible for competitor oversight, change culture, define purpose/mission etc etc you get the drift.

[Tommy G]

7 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

IMO not so, 'smart' people can apply themselves to their job or specificity very well. Different ball game when you are expected to win business, keep external relations happy, communicate effectively to the Board/NEDs/investors, solve all HR matters, integrate new systems and processes, lead teams where you have no experience, open a new service/business line, oversee an international service/office, create a network, be responsible for competitor oversight, change culture, define purpose/mission etc etc you get the drift.

Exactly 100% x 10

[SpacedX]

On 29/01/2024 at 22:59, pleatout said:

Tips for anyone applying - look at the person specification.  It will tell you EVERYTHING!  2 columns - mandatory and desirable "skills".  Hit all the mandatorys and they have to short list you (unless there are hundreds that meet the essentials and then they draw applications out at random).  It will often tell you if they are measured on the application form or at interview. 

Actually, no. This is bad advice and a common misconception. Firstly, not all vacancies advertised have a PS. There may simply be a role description, typically detailing the duties and requirements in addition to the competencies and experience required. Secondly, it does not provide the necessary contextual information. 

 

In the case of the NHS, there will almost always be a Person Specification, but it is very important that you base your supporting statement on the job description which provides the vital contextualisation. Omitting consideration of this will severely disadvantage any applicant. You may implicitly construct the statement paragraphs around the order of the Person Specification, providing that there are a sufficient amount of headings and that they are appropriate (or adopt a narrative approach), but it's better to base either upon the content of the job description which almost invariably provides far more information and detail and can be useful in eliciting the experience that you need to demonstrate. The PS can then be used to augment this. Rather like a recipe for a dish, most of the ingredients can be found in the JS, you then flavour it, spice it up or dress it with the PS ensuring that nothing is left out. (Often this will summarise or duplicate the content of the job description). You may not meet all of the 'advantageous' criteria - but it is vitally important to evidence everything that is listed as 'essential'. Can I think of any more dubious culinary metaphors? - yes, essentially, the PS is the icing on the cake. You can then top the statement off by adding the salient requirements of the role and the key terminology/competencies/experience/knowledge and values. It is also essential that aside from the Job Description /Personal Statement that a candidate thoroughly researches both the organisation, (their mission, strategy, culture) and the sector itself. 

 

Take the spirit of the JS and the letter of the PS. 

Edited 31 January by SpacedX

[UniFox21]

6 minutes ago, SpacedX said:

Actually, no. This is bad advice and a common misconception. Firstly, not all vacancies advertised have a PS. There may simply be a role description, typically detailing the duties and requirements in addition to the competencies and experience required. Secondly, it does not provide the necessary contextual information. 

 

In the case of the NHS, there will almost always be a Person Specification, but it is very important that you base your supporting statement on the job description which provides the vital contextualisation. Omitting consideration of this will severely disadvantage any applicant. You may implicitly construct the statement paragraphs around the order of the Person Specification, providing that there are a sufficient amount of headings and that they are appropriate (or adopt a narrative approach), but it's better to base either upon the content of the job description which almost invariably provides far more information and detail and can be useful in eliciting the experience that you need to demonstrate. The PS can then be used to augment this. Rather like a recipe for a dish, most of the ingredients can be found in the JS, you then flavour it, spice it up or dress it with the PS ensuring that nothing is left out. (Often this will summarise or duplicate the content of the job description). You may not meet all of the 'advantageous' criteria - but it is vitally important to evidence everything that is listed as 'essential'. Can I think of any more dubious culinary metaphors? - yes, essentially, the PS is the icing on the cake. You can then top the statement off by adding the salient requirements of the role and the key terminology/competencies/experience/knowledge and values. It is also essential that aside from the Job Description /Personal Statement that a candidate thoroughly researches both the organisation, (their mission, strategy, culture) and the sector itself. 

 

Take the spirit of the JS and the letter of the PS. 

This is also what I hate about applications.

 

You can spend hours/days making an application where you fit all the essential criteria, flavouring with the PS, to then receive an email maybe a month later saying "nah soz and this email account isn't monitored" 

[SpacedX]

2 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

This is also what I hate about applications.

 

You can spend hours/days making an application where you fit all the essential criteria, flavouring with the PS, to then receive an email maybe a month later saying "nah soz and this email account isn't monitored" 

Too true. 

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

This is also what I hate about applications.

 

You can spend hours/days making an application where you fit all the essential criteria, flavouring with the PS, to then receive an email maybe a month later saying "nah soz and this email account isn't monitored" 

Lots of that going round right now.

[grobyfox1990]

42 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

This is also what I hate about applications.

 

You can spend hours/days making an application where you fit all the essential criteria, flavouring with the PS, to then receive an email maybe a month later saying "nah soz and this email account isn't monitored" 

That’s the point right, you thinking you fit the criteria? Rather than them? Recruiters are annoying but atleast they’ll tell you what the hiring manager is looking for, including culture wise. Likewise the importance of a strong network. 

[UniFox21]

1 minute ago, grobyfox1990 said:

That’s the point right, you thinking you fit the criteria? Rather than them? Recruiters are annoying but atleast they’ll tell you what the hiring manager is looking for, including culture wise. Likewise the importance of a strong network. 

On many occasions yeah you're spot on, and it's brilliant when that happens. Many companies HR also do this for interviews, I've one next week and HR rang me and walked me through what to look over.

 

But I've heard of quite a few occasions from friends/colleagues where they've been selected for interview, with the recruiter telling them afterwards they were expecting them to fail.

[grobyfox1990]

48 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

On many occasions yeah you're spot on, and it's brilliant when that happens. Many companies HR also do this for interviews, I've one next week and HR rang me and walked me through what to look over.

 

But I've heard of quite a few occasions from friends/colleagues where they've been selected for interview, with the recruiter telling them afterwards they were expecting them to fail.

Fair enough, yeh if you've got a preferred candidate (again, importance of a good network...) it's always gonna be difficult for others. Good luck next week.

[pleatout]

13 hours ago, SpacedX said:

Actually, no. This is bad advice and a common misconception. Firstly, not all vacancies advertised have a PS. There may simply be a role description, typically detailing the duties and requirements in addition to the competencies and experience required. Secondly, it does not provide the necessary contextual information. 

 

In the case of the NHS, there will almost always be a Person Specification, but it is very important that you base your supporting statement on the job description which provides the vital contextualisation. Omitting consideration of this will severely disadvantage any applicant. You may implicitly construct the statement paragraphs around the order of the Person Specification, providing that there are a sufficient amount of headings and that they are appropriate (or adopt a narrative approach), but it's better to base either upon the content of the job description which almost invariably provides far more information and detail and can be useful in eliciting the experience that you need to demonstrate. The PS can then be used to augment this. Rather like a recipe for a dish, most of the ingredients can be found in the JS, you then flavour it, spice it up or dress it with the PS ensuring that nothing is left out. (Often this will summarise or duplicate the content of the job description). You may not meet all of the 'advantageous' criteria - but it is vitally important to evidence everything that is listed as 'essential'. Can I think of any more dubious culinary metaphors? - yes, essentially, the PS is the icing on the cake. You can then top the statement off by adding the salient requirements of the role and the key terminology/competencies/experience/knowledge and values. It is also essential that aside from the Job Description /Personal Statement that a candidate thoroughly researches both the organisation, (their mission, strategy, culture) and the sector itself. 

 

Take the spirit of the JS and the letter of the PS. 

I did say NHS jobs.  I was specifically talking about NHS jobs.  That is why I said NHS jobs. 

 

That is how we do things in the NHS.  Others, I have no experience of.  But the NHS, that IS how it works.  

 

But hey, thanks for incorrecting me.

[SpacedX]

8 hours ago, pleatout said:

I did say NHS jobs.  I was specifically talking about NHS jobs.  That is why I said NHS jobs. 

 

That is how we do things in the NHS.  Others, I have no experience of.  But the NHS, that IS how it works.  

 

But hey, thanks for incorrecting me.

No need to be so sensitive and indignant. No it is not how things are done in the NHS, otherwise there wouldn't be a 'role outline' and a 'job description'. It's a common misconception that the Person Specification "will tell you EVERYTHING that you need to know" and utterly appalling advice to give. Those that ignore factors such as trust values for example and the contextual content of the job description will be at a distinct disadvantage to those candidates that invite both in their applications. You are absolutely correct however when you stress the importance of satisfying the mandatory criteria - but no, they do not "have to shortlist you" based upon this at all. 

Edited 1 February by SpacedX

[Freeman's Wharfer]

If I was going for a new job right now, the first thing I’d do is connect with a few existing employees on LinkedIn and ask if they’d be open to chatting about the role and company.

 

Quite often companies have referral systems where the employee can put you in and receive a referral bonus if you get the job (which gets them invested in helping you with a bit of insider knowledge). Even if not, it shows a bit of initiative and can help you tailor your application/interview approach.

[pleatout]

5 hours ago, SpacedX said:

No need to be so sensitive and indignant. No it is not how things are done in the NHS, otherwise there wouldn't be a 'role outline' and a 'job description'. It's a common misconception that the Person Specification "will tell you EVERYTHING that you need to know" and utterly appalling advice to give. Those that ignore factors such as trust values for example and the contextual content of the job description will be at a distinct disadvantage to those candidates that invite both in their applications. You are absolutely correct however when you stress the importance of satisfying the mandatory criteria - but no, they do not "have to shortlist you" based upon this at all. 

Fair dos mate.  I've only been doing this for 40 years.  But you obviously know more about NHS recruitment than I do.

 

I'll leave it with you.

 

 

[SpacedX]

27 minutes ago, pleatout said:

Fair dos mate.  I've only been doing this for 40 years.  But you obviously know more about NHS recruitment than I do.

 

I'll leave it with you.

 

 

Doing what precisely? Because if you advise people to omit consideration of the job description and NHS core values/trust values and tell them that you are always shortlisted if you address the mandatory criteria of the PS then you're doing it wrong and completely differently to other recruiters in the organisation.

 

I'll leave it with you. 

[SpacedX]

4 hours ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

If I was going for a new job right now, the first thing I’d do is connect with a few existing employees on LinkedIn and ask if they’d be open to chatting about the role and company.

 

Quite often companies have referral systems where the employee can put you in and receive a referral bonus if you get the job (which gets them invested in helping you with a bit of insider knowledge). Even if not, it shows a bit of initiative and can help you tailor your application/interview approach.

Excellent advice. Thanks. 

[pleatout]

2 hours ago, SpacedX said:

Doing what precisely? Because if you advise people to omit consideration of the job description and NHS core values/trust values and tell them that you are always shortlisted if you address the mandatory criteria of the PS then you're doing it wrong and completely differently to other recruiters in the organisation.

 

I'll leave it with you. 

Ok and the advice on the nhs jobs site - https://www.jobs.nhs.uk/candidate/search/advice/making-successful-applications you know the one I originally stated says

 

"All employers will be judging how well your application matches the 'person specification' for the position you are applying for. The applicants who closely match the person specification will be the ones that are shortlisted for interview.

To stand the best chance of receiving an invitation is to demonstrate that you do have the skills and experience as stipulated within the person specification and provide clear examples within the supporting information section."

 

The job description describes the job.  The person specification describes the person required to do that job.  Recruitment is about recruiting a person not about recruiting a job.  You need to meet the person specification not meet the job description.

 

I've been on the recruitment course (a number of times).  If you don't know this, and you clearly don't, then I would suggest you either haven't had the training or were not paying attention. 

 

So once again, I thank you for incorrecting me.

[SpacedX]

2 hours ago, pleatout said:

Ok and the advice on the nhs jobs site - https://www.jobs.nhs.uk/candidate/search/advice/making-successful-applications you know the one I originally stated says

 

"All employers will be judging how well your application matches the 'person specification' for the position you are applying for. The applicants who closely match the person specification will be the ones that are shortlisted for interview.

To stand the best chance of receiving an invitation is to demonstrate that you do have the skills and experience as stipulated within the person specification and provide clear examples within the supporting information section."

 

The job description describes the job.  The person specification describes the person required to do that job.  Recruitment is about recruiting a person not about recruiting a job.  You need to meet the person specification not meet the job description.

 

I've been on the recruitment course (a number of times).  If you don't know this, and you clearly don't, then I would suggest you either haven't had the training or were not paying attention. 

 

So once again, I thank you for incorrecting me.

Jeez, this has really upset you hasn't it? I thought you were done with this? We know this - where does it say ignore the Job Description in your application? 

 

Sigh! As you will be familiar with, the NHS can be deluged with applicants and it's not unusual for several hundred applications to come in for one vacancy, which is why they will often close before the stipulated deadline. So firstly, your contention that by simply "hitting the mandatories" of the PS will result in being shortlisted is demonstrably nonsense. Furthermore, anyone that manages to meet the non-essential criteria which have an advantage and prevail over someone that has evidenced all of the mandatory requirements. 

 

Secondly, both JD and PS are frequently cannibalised from other roles and can contain superfluous information or either one may omit important content. They may have been copied and pasted in haste from other job descriptions and may not actually accurately reflect the reality of the post to which you are applying. It may also be that some important criteria have deliberately been left out in order to retain flexibility during the recruitment process. For those reasons, it's crucial to base an application upon both to gain a good appreciation of the unwritten requirements if either and maximise the advantage.

 

The wording may be vague and therefore difficult to interpret. For example, an essential criteria may be "wide-ranging experience of the speciality" or "good teaching experience", which means very little. Again, you should use the Job Description to gain a more refined interpretation of those criteria and vital context.

 

Finally, as any recruiting medical consultant or medical professional will tell you - and this is particularly for healthcare professionals and practitioner roles, there is an expectation that a candidate will evidence wider insight and appreciation of public health and the NHS in addition to the NHS constitution, core values, clinical governance, patient centred care, confidentiality, safeguarding, and equality and diversity. Some of this - but not all - will almost invariably be present in the Job Description, but not necessarily always the Personal Specification. Inclusion of such themes make a supporting statement stand out, particularly when there is a high volume of applications - and even in non-professional roles ranging from porter to administrator. Additionally, the Trust values, which are often key to the application are listed separately and frequently at the end of the documents. 

 

2 hours ago, pleatout said:

I've been on the recruitment course (a number of times). 

Seriously? Listen to yourself! And yet you don't appreciate that recruitment is also prone to being subjective and as much as you can try to eliminate it, can also be subject to subconscious bias? Ultimately, despite the increasing prevalence of ATS, an application is shortlisted and screened by a human being, not a bot. They are to an extent looking for themselves on a page, not simply someone who can regurgitate a person specification without any evidential context,or substantiation.

 

You gave some appalling advice over a football forum recommending that the Person Specification "will tell you  "EVERYTHING that you need to know" and you are always shortlisted if you address the mandatory criteria of the PS. I merely pointed out that this was absolutely untrue and this seems to have upset you greatly.

 

Please mellow out, I really don't want to argue with you. 

 

[Guest David Oldfields Gate]

No wonder the NHS is ****ed.

[pleatout]

5 hours ago, SpacedX said:

Jeez, this has really upset you hasn't it? I thought you were done with this? We know this - where does it say ignore the Job Description in your application? 

 

Sigh! As you will be familiar with, the NHS can be deluged with applicants and it's not unusual for several hundred applications to come in for one vacancy, which is why they will often close before the stipulated deadline. So firstly, your contention that by simply "hitting the mandatories" of the PS will result in being shortlisted is demonstrably nonsense. Furthermore, anyone that manages to meet the non-essential criteria which have an advantage and prevail over someone that has evidenced all of the mandatory requirements. 

 

Secondly, both JD and PS are frequently cannibalised from other roles and can contain superfluous information or either one may omit important content. They may have been copied and pasted in haste from other job descriptions and may not actually accurately reflect the reality of the post to which you are applying. It may also be that some important criteria have deliberately been left out in order to retain flexibility during the recruitment process. For those reasons, it's crucial to base an application upon both to gain a good appreciation of the unwritten requirements if either and maximise the advantage.

 

The wording may be vague and therefore difficult to interpret. For example, an essential criteria may be "wide-ranging experience of the speciality" or "good teaching experience", which means very little. Again, you should use the Job Description to gain a more refined interpretation of those criteria and vital context.

 

Finally, as any recruiting medical consultant or medical professional will tell you - and this is particularly for healthcare professionals and practitioner roles, there is an expectation that a candidate will evidence wider insight and appreciation of public health and the NHS in addition to the NHS constitution, core values, clinical governance, patient centred care, confidentiality, safeguarding, and equality and diversity. Some of this - but not all - will almost invariably be present in the Job Description, but not necessarily always the Personal Specification. Inclusion of such themes make a supporting statement stand out, particularly when there is a high volume of applications - and even in non-professional roles ranging from porter to administrator. Additionally, the Trust values, which are often key to the application are listed separately and frequently at the end of the documents. 

 

Seriously? Listen to yourself! And yet you don't appreciate that recruitment is also prone to being subjective and as much as you can try to eliminate it, can also be subject to subconscious bias? Ultimately, despite the increasing prevalence of ATS, an application is shortlisted and screened by a human being, not a bot. They are to an extent looking for themselves on a page, not simply someone who can regurgitate a person specification without any evidential context,or substantiation.

 

You gave some appalling advice over a football forum recommending that the Person Specification "will tell you  "EVERYTHING that you need to know" and you are always shortlisted if you address the mandatory criteria of the PS. I merely pointed out that this was absolutely untrue and this seems to have upset you greatly.

 

Please mellow out, I really don't want to argue with you. 

 

Wow!

 

You really want to go with this dont you.  

 

Ok, read the following Local NHS Trust recruitment policy

 

https://www.leicspart.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Recruitment-and-Selection-Policy-Exp-Mar-26.pdf

 

13.7 onwards.  You can argue with the policy if you like but it does say "Applicants will be expected to meet the appropriate essential criteria for the position as identified on the person specification for this stage of the selection process."  BTW it mentions the JD 3 times.  And NOT in the context you think it does.

 

I think we can now accept the my advice for applications via the NHS jobs website is sound, appropriate and in accordance with policy.

[UniFox21]

So what we've gathered is the PS tells you the skills/experience you need and the JD tells you the context those skills are to be applied in. 

Looking solely at one or the other will disadvantage you.