As in most of my blogs, I claim no panaceas for interviewing or final incontrovertible wisdom. All I have is a lot of experience in the war zone. I do not believe anyone can give another person a foolproof strategy for finding employment. If my experience helps someone, I am glad of it. I do recommend reading and practicing sample answers and questions readily available on the Internet.
Being invited to a phone interview always pleased me — often more so than a personal, physical meeting. The phone interview is a warm up for the real thing. The phone opportunity provides anonymity that can be advantageous. One point is that the interviewer has limited the evaluation to one of the senses, i.e. hearing. The interviewee is free to prop her legs up on the footstool and sip a little iced tea. You’re even free to walk around a little. The interviewer cannot see fidgeting, shuffling feet or drifting, insecure eyes. However, the voice can also reflect any of these weaknesses too. I don’t recommend smoking at a phone interview. Even for a phone interview I did not wear grubbies or skip combing my hair or shaving. Why? I felt better. I never, however, wore a tie for a phone interview unless it happened to be during time stolen from my work day.
I liked phone interviews because I have had a lot of experience conducting business on the phone. The telephone gives me a sense of objectivity, a distance. I, too, in a positive way was forced to use one medium; then, too, a number of people had complimented me on my telephone manner. I am like most disc jockeys, rather introverted. The phone gave me an impersonal situation I could use to my advantage. The challenge lay in maintaining that confidence and “presence” in a personal interview later.
At the same time I assumed that the phone interview is used when the number of interesting applicants is rather high. Phone interviews are screens, most likely designed to eliminate candidates. On the phone one interviews for another interview, not a position. My whole objective was to get a physical interview, but not to be too eager. Sometimes I might answer a question briefly and then add, “This seems to me to be an important question for both of us. I hope I will have an opportunity to provide more details in person. I have a written proposal I once gave on the subject. ”
I tried as hard as I could to match voices with names, but rather than address the wrong person, I did not hesitate to say, “I think that was Roger, right?” The interviewer or team will be helpful. I wrote names down during the introduction. If possible. I tried to catch the company name. No harm in asking, “Now, tell me where youwork again?”
Do not jump to conclusions about anything based on tone of voice. Do not react negatively to what sounds patronizing or sanctimonious. That person may not even be on the second interview team.
A telephone is a great medium for being one’s self, for being forthright and candid, but not familiar.
If necessary ask for the question to be repeated for clarity — that buys a little time for thought.
Speak clearly and to the point. Do not go on and on. The telephone invites informality and directness — sometimes too much. Use the medium for what is. ”I could say more on this favorite topic, but I know we haven’t the time.”
If you notice a thread, say ”Well, to you and Roger, I would say . . .”
At some point ask, “Does this position entail significant telephone communication?” If it is a sales or PR position say, “I know that the position requires excellent telephone skills. In my past work I . . . ”
On the telephone one can close his eyes even and imagine a receptive person on the other end. Speak to that positive person you visualize — maybe it is your friend, parent, or favorite uncle you are imaging.
Having a friend or spouse in the room might be a help or a hindrance. If silent companionship helps, hold hands, but don’t get palsy walsy. Got a cat or laid back dog for your lap or at your feet. A pet may do something to make you smile. That smile will relax you. You can do no wrong in the estimation of a pet. Besides, in my experience animals have a way of putting things in perspective. There will be more interviews.
Steadfast and cautious,
The Tortoise
Social Darwinism, Alive and Well in Election 2012
The Tortoise in his plodding way set out to understand liberalism and laissez faire. But Tortoise, slow and steady, steadfast and cautious, got very angry when he read that “In nature, survival of the fittest is the rule [at least according to Herbert Spencer, 1802-1903 in The Gospel of Social Darwinism]. Well, this he could accept, but he could not tolerate that “the weak and the effete make way for the strong and the swift.” That was it for Tortoise who knows a lot about survival, the strong and the swift. “Why,” he asked, ”do the strong and the swift have any better claim in the pursuit of happiness than the slow and the steady, the prudent and the deliberate? What’s the big deal about muscles and speed, especially if most of them are on steroids? Does everyone have to win a frickin’ bowl game to be worth a damn? Why with some luck a tortoise can live 100 years!”
Tortoise, my friends, is furious. Any way this is what Herbert Spencer thought in the late 19th Century and things haven’t changed much. We all know who’s expendable, don’t we, Mr. Job Creator.
R. Strinivasan has written a superb paper on “Liberalism.” The article or Position Paper–16, appears at Indian Liberals(Group) in Vol.2. For those who have ever cared about such things as the evolution of liberalism from the 16th Century to the present, this is a readable article and mercifully short. This matters, friends, this matters. Liberalism isn’t socialism. The article clarifies why today’s American Conservatives are really 19th Century Liberals.
But more important, although the American election is not Strinivasan’s subject, his scholarship provides an historical perspective for the 2012 Debate in the U.S. — currently playing out in our mindless, Media circus. If you want to take the extra time in this paper, you can also appreciate the differences in British, French, German and American liberalism. In each nation the philosophy grew out of the unique experiences of these peoples. From other reading(Edmund Burke), I know that the French Revolution and Robespierre, for example, gave the French a strong desire for a strong state. Watching that revolution from across the English Channel profoundly affected the British way.
Read this paper and you will understand how much demagoguery inundates us this political season. A plague on all thelr houses!
Here’s one last quote from the paper. Read “Liberal” as “Job Creator:”
“Apart from this, there was an unfeeling attitude to the problems of the proletariat. The British economists were impressed by laws which they held to be immutable. Malthus was to argue of the impossibility of improving the lot of the poor – they tend to have an excessive birth rate. The subsistence theory of wages argued that the wage tends to be at a level which would allow the labour to exist and perpetuate itself without increase or decrease of their numbers. Any legislation which would augment the wage of the labour will result in a population increase which would offset the gain and poverty would continue. Also, increase in wages would eat into profits, reduce investment into production, increase unemployment and perpetuate misery. Nassau Senior advocated a view that legislation to shorten the hours of labour would militate against the profits; for profits are made only in the last hour of the working day. If one were to shorten the working hours, it would lead to the closing of the factories and mines. He was dubbed as ‘Last Hour Senior’. The Liberals were described as creating a science for wealth rather than a science of wealth.”
Steadfast and cautious,
for The Tortoise
David Milliken