it's safe to say I'm not giving 100% attention to webinars of any kind, ever
• Who are your company's stars, and how was their status determined?
my last in-office work was at a regional bank. The company has a couple dozen locations and employs 500 people or so. Beyond the bureaucratic hierarchy of team-leads, supervisors, officers, directors, chairs, managers and chiefs, there is a very apparent in-group/out-group mentality. The in group is obviously those who have been around for a while and proven themselves, but it's also people who are hired with the (HR) intention of being "lifers." I honestly can't explain what that means, really, because I was so clearly NOT in that category. What I do know: if a "lifer" finds another job, they would be heavily recruited to stay, to the tune of massive raises and accommodations ... which only perpetuates the us vs. them mentality. I know I'm contrarian, but that shit gets under my skin so badly; I wouldn't want it even if they'd offered it.
this is an interesting (in all the derivations of that word) topic. My last in-office job was with a company that shouts to the rooftops its obsessive dedication to improving their employees, in the guise of competitive "leadership classes" and so forth. I think that's a hilarious, unworkable conundrum that no one in a position of power has ever thoughtfully
considered. Making people fight over the opportunity to improve themselves... seems like there's something big missing in that scenario. It's not essentially supportive or encouraging, which I consider to be basic elements of leadership.
considered. Making people fight over the opportunity to improve themselves... seems like there's something big missing in that scenario. It's not essentially supportive or encouraging, which I consider to be basic elements of leadership.
Employers are not in business to develop the careers of employees. They are in business to make as much money as possible while spending as little as possible. There is no loyalty on their side. Looking for altruism or beneficence there is a wasted effort.
• How often do you prefer to meet with a supervisor to go over work progress?
rarely. Unless it's organic, an ongoing conversation, it's going to be stilted, uncomfortable, and sometimes counter-productive. Insistence on following hard and fast HR rules has screwed up natural interactions between coworkers, and from supervisors to employees.
• What are the traits and skills of people who are the most successful within an organization for which you've worked? 
library work attracts the introverted, but everybody knows that introverts are at a natural disadvantage in the extroverted work world. Employers are looking for a combination rare as hens' teeth: quiet, polite, insightful, heavy library users - who also happen to be approachable, friendly, capable of using a wide variety of technology, eager to teach classes or run workshops or facilitate Reading to the Dog story hours, interested in community outreach (read: participate in local festivals and parades, serve on local boards of directors, and basically represent the library in any way at all times of day) - and all at a sadly low rate of pay. It's a neat balance, hard to achieve, and hard to live with over time.
I have consistently been surprised and disappointed that employers don't want to hear about a problem before it happens, even when a solution is offered. Across the board, they want to hear HAPPY things that make them feel powerful and successful. Isn't it strange, though, that they don't want to prevent things that will make them look weak, foolish, and ineffective?
Although intelligent, I can be blind to other peoples' tolerance for my brand of expression. That alone shot the Hell out of my interactions with my [last] boss at the finance company. He was - at least in my role - looking for a cheerleader, not a bloodhound. It's definitely a weakness that I can't see that before it happens and respond positively.
• Do you think it's important for a company to support and promote personal and professional growth? I think it's a phenomenal benefit - and I have never encountered a company that actually followed through with what they claim that benefit will entail. They build in so many exclusions and limitations that it is, in the end, a hollow claim.
As with any professional license or certification, attorneys are required to continue education throughout their career. I was lucky for the first couple of decades, that my license was inactive. That allowed me to forego CLE (continuing legal education), which is both costly and time-consuming. However, when I moved back into the law (November, 2021), my CLE requirement began. At the time, the firm I was with would cover some of those costs. Now, though, I am responsible for all of it. Support from an employer, even a partial contribution, is a big help for keeping current in the field.
• What are three big job/work/career issues that keep you up at night?
° CLE
° balancing the desire for regular work with the wish to be involved in a variety of shorter projects, both to get experience in different areas and also because some of the short-term gigs are paid at a much higher rate
° thinking more about retirement, which looms in a decade or so, and how that will affect my finances
• How do you feel you've measured up to the requirements for the positions you've held? I've been surprisingly under-qualified for most of the jobs I've been hired to do (notably the middle of the finance jobs, which was far more math and customer service than I am). After a fairly short time, though, I acquired the skills and experience to have earned each job if I'd had to reapply. The only position that really calls that into question is the last of the finance jobs, because my position had an ever-evolving job description that seemed designed to keep it just out of my grasp. I was set up to fail there.
[from 301 Best Questions to ask on your Interview; the title quotation is by Chuck Palahniuk, from Fight Club]
No comments:
Post a Comment