No need to tick all the boxes

[Badshah Mamun]

No need to tick all the boxes

By Jim Bright

You won't land the job if you don't apply, says Jim Bright.

Barry writes: "I have been looking for a job for about six months, mainly in the federal public service. The major problem I have been having is trying to address the selection criteria for the various jobs. I can usually address three or even four [out of the five] ... but invariably come up against a statement that asks me whether I know [the business management software] MYOB (I don't but it wouldn't take me long to learn it), or whether I am familiar with software that is peculiar to a certain department (how could I be if I don't work there?), or whether I have experience with certain protocols, procedures or jargon. Do I fudge my CV or tell the truth? And, more importantly, is anybody out there in the world experiencing the same problems as me?"

To answer your last question, there are loads of job-hunters experiencing similar anxieties about selection criteria. The formal and precise nature of many selection criteria often induces a sense of interrogation and being evaluated on sometimes exceedingly narrow criteria.

The trick is to appreciate that behind all the official - and sometimes officious - language and demands, there are a bunch of human beings who are generally sensible and able to interpret their own guidelines creatively.

This means that despite what people assert publicly, it is not unknown for panels to overlook a supposedly essential criteria and weigh other aspects of the candidate more heavily.

Some years ago, I ran a study that investigated the way candidates were rated by managers trained to use a very expensive competency matrix system. Despite there being about 10 individual competencies, when we looked at the ratings for each candidate, they were very highly correlated.

In other words, the managers appeared to have formed a general view of the candidate (positive or negative) and then allocated scores to each competency to reflect their general impression. What this means is, if you address most of the criteria exceptionally well, it is likely you'll get the benefit of the doubt for a weaker one.

Of course in saying this I anticipate howls of protest from those on the other side of the desk who believe they do not do this and, to a reasonable extent, they are probably correct. All I am saying is it is not necessarily the case that failure to address all the criteria outstandingly will result in automatic rejection.

I have seen situations where a department advertises Job A. The criteria reflect the duties undertaken by the person who is moving on. Then another unexpected vacancy occurs soon after, so Job B is also advertised.

When the department shortlists and interviews for Job A, it discovers a candidate who half matches Job A but also half matches Job B. The department employs this person because they present it with a way of reorganising and combining some of the functions of Job A and B.

When it then comes to shortlisting and interviewing for Job B, half of the advertised criteria are now redundant so the panel may look favourably on a range of competencies that were not originally included.

So even if you do not precisely meet the criteria, it is worth persisting with an application, indicating a willingness ? and preferably a track record ? of learning new skills fast. It's perhaps even worth offering competencies the panel has not asked for that you think would be attractive.

It is great to be an exact match but even if you are, there is no guarantee that you will get the job.

More importantly, even if you are not, often you can still be in with a good chance. Don't look for reasons to exclude yourself from applying; always focus on the reasons why you should and reflect this positive self-view in your selection criteria statements.

Source: http://content.mycareer.com.au/advice-research/search/no-need-tick-boxes.aspx