Re: thanks yous and interviews from hell

Subject: Re: thanks yous and interviews from hell
From: "J. Michael Beasley" <tbeezer -at- YAHOO -dot- COM>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 12:06:06 -0700

Greetings listmates:

I've read with interest the recent postings on interviewing, especially
those regarding sending or not sending a thank you
note/card/letter/e-mail after an interview and those on trying to find
an employee who is a perfect "fit".

A. To thank or not to thank, that is the question...

Personally, I have been a sender. I've never thought of myself as a
boot-licking, oily, derriere-bussing miscreant, but I may be mistaken.

Generally, the practice has resulted in me being called back for
further interviews, and/or being hired. At very least, my boot-lickiing
missives have provoked some sincere "thanks, but no thanks" responses.
I always appreciate being told if I am or am not wanted. Silence kills

I try not to use it as a sales opportunity, but rather as an
opportunity to state (or perhaps restate), frankly and sincerely, the
points about the interview and job that most excited me, and those that
may not have. I may also take the opportunity to emphasize some points
I may not have been able to emphasize during the interview. Generally,
I think pretty fast, but not always at the blazing speed of a really
good interview.

I also see it as an opportunity to ask a few questions that may have
come up after the interview.

Essentially, I think it's a fine time to re-emphasize one's sincere
interest (if indeed it is sincere) in the position, to review some of
the salient points of the interview and let the interviewer know that
you are serious and interested, and that you were paying attention. I
always appreciate a good interviewer (as much as I abhor a really lousy
one), and I think it can't hurt to let your interrogator know either

Sales and boot licking are, of course, optional for those so inclined.

I was surprised to read that some hirers are really turned off by thank
you letters, and I suppose the lesson that I have learned is that I'm
going to do what makes sense and what seems the decent and reasonable
thing to do, and if the interviewer is to boorish to tolerate that,
then tough knuckles for me.

As a hirer, I get senders and non-senders, and I prefer the sender if I
get the feeling the letter is sincere and has been sent with a purpose
other than osculating my nether regions. It's usually pretty easy to
sniff out.

B. Skills and Abilities, or good breeding.

I was also interested to read various views on hiring applicants with
great qualifications, or those who seem like they would be a good fit.
Naturally, it's preferable to find someone who is entirely qualified
and makes a great gimlet as well, but this almost never happens.

But I've worked in several organizations where there was one person
(and one person is all it takes) who was exceptionally qualified, but a
ragingly insufferable excuse for a human being who didn't give a rat's
cheek about anyone else. The result in each case was an essentially
dysfunctional organization. Woe was us.

Well, I've said far too much.
Thanks for the info, instruction, and opinions.

J. Michael Beasley
Editor, Capital City Press

Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free address at

From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=

Previous by Author: Job: Intermediate TW, Fredericton, NB
Next by Author: New Job Openings (California)
Previous by Thread: Re: trademarks (was Windows Annotations)
Next by Thread: Re: thanks yous and interviews from hell

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads