Number 2

Hmmm, writing about going number two sounds more interesting than what you are about to read.

The second candidate was scheduled an hour after the first.  I want to start by saying I have nothing positive to say about this candidate.  This person barely met the qualifications and was actually ranked very low according to all the other candidates that met qualifications and in turn was not scheduled to have a phone interview initially.  However, it was stated by the search committee chairs that internal candidates should get a chance to change our minds since they were dedicated to the organization.  It seems only fair, right?

I will give you some background info on this person so you can be biased before the interview details are presented.  Trust me, it won't make a difference either way.  I really, really wish I had a recording of this interview.  I do not want to make fun of this person, but I want to show taxpayers how their money is wasted and why the state and federal government doesn't work the way it should.  I truly believe if government employees were rewarded or reprimanded based on their merit, the system would be working as intended.  I can guarantee there are government employees that do absolutely nothing throughout the day and still collect the same paycheck as everyone else.  That is as far as I will go on that off-shoot.

Oh yeah, the background information.  This person is our "Team Leader".  I put team leader in quotes, not because she doesn't actually hold that title, but rather she doesn't actually do anything related to the team or being a leader.  Sadly when I started this job about four years ago, she was the one that "trained" me.  I worked on one computer with her and realized I was already leaps and bounds ahead of her on my first day. I did have some previous experience, but it was limited to side work that I did for fun or for family members.  I also did it as needed on my previous jobs, but had no real training.  The team leader boasted fifteen years of experience.  I quickly learned who to ask for help when learning new skills and she was not one of those people.  I was actually abhorred on one early mission when I was assigned to help her set up a new computer.  She basically badgered the user, asking questions that would not fix anything, rather they were only asked to place blame.  The user was almost brought to tears.  I had never felt so embarrassed in any of my previous jobs.  After that, I found ways to alter work schedules so as to not be out on jobs with the team leader.  There are plenty more examples, but that could go on forever.

Let's begin with question one.  A very simple question, "why do you want this position?".  Anybody could answer this.  Well, some mumbling and unrelated comments followed.  As she finished "answering" the first question, the committee chair asked the same question again, because she had not actually answered the question, it was more of an unrelated rambling.  This proceeded for the next 3-4 questions.  The committee chair politely asked her to answer the question a second time because she wasn't even answering part of the question.  It was sad.  By about the fifth non-answer the committee chair looked around the table and we all agreed with our eyes that we needed to just get through the interview.  The chair continued through the rest of the questions whether they were answered or not.

Then comes the blatant lying.  Are you kidding me?  The team leader knew for a fact that two members of her team were on the search committee.  On more than two questions, she proceeded to tell flat out lies.  One of them was based on her method of motivating employees, which was non-existent.  Not only did she pretend that she had come up with this motivational technique, which was actually implemented by our previous director, she didn't actually do it.  Strike four hundred and thirty-seven. How is this person still working at this organization?

Finally the phone interview was over.  Everyone on the committee quickly and logically marked her off the list for face-to-face interviews.  I have been a manager in the past and have hired employees.  I have also experienced what bad leaders have to offer.  I won't pretend to know everything about leading, but I wouldn't have hired our current "team leader" to do hourly filing work based on her phone interview.  This is not an exaggeration.  I am 100% serious.

Yes, she is still the team leader...

Dream Realization

I had a dream last night.  I was able to finally solve the age old question of "how did that moose get into that tree?".  Sitting in the woods, suddenly I see an eagle swoop down and pick up a what appeared to be a full grown beaver and carry it to its nest.  I got a bit closer and realized it was a newborn moose.

Who would have thought an eagle could do that?  I still haven't figured out how the moose survived in the tree long enough to become full grown many years later.  Hopefully I will find that answer sometime in the near future.

IT Director Search Committee

Here I am with one other person in our group assigned to the search committee to find a new IT Director.  Awesome, I got picked to do something important.  More motivating was that I was picked over several other team members that had been there much longer than me.  I must be doing something right?  Day one, analyze roughly 30 applicants and their resumes and provide recommendations to the search committee who would be a candidate for the first round of phone interviews.    I found 3 that were in fact qualified to do the job.  As a committee we decided to phone interview 5 candidates.

The first was our current server team leader.  We had a list of 30 or so questions that we asked each candidate in the same order to judge their responses and compare them to the other candidates.  After each phone interview we briefly discussed the overall pros and cons of each candidate.  This is a very simple concept. As it goes we discussed the first candidate immediately following the interview while it was fresh on our minds.  EVERYONE on the committee agreed that the candidate answered all the questions with great enthusiasm and expert knowledge.  Not one person had anything that could be listed as a con if you only based your decision on the interview. Why was this person not picked for a face to face interview?

Well, that is the beauty of the search committee.  Two of the members vehemently opposed this candidate based on previous interactions with this person.  I cannot tell you who was "right" in those previous interactions, but I can tell you both parties had their reasons that made sense to them.  The bashing commenced for another five minutes or so stating this individual was hard to work with.  I could only agree that he had a system that ensured stability with the lab infrastructure. This of course would result in testing if a faculty member requested new software be added to the entire lab which would take a day or two.  Which makes sense to me as that lab is used by several faculty members who cannot have their classes jeopardized by a single instructor who had to have this software now.  From my understanding, the instructor wanted this done within 24 hours.

Differences aside, should a candidate really be judged on their past experiences with a single faculty member or should you base your decision on the interview and resume of the applicant?  Keep in mind that the candidates applying from outside the University are free from this judgement as no one really knows them besides their interview and application.

One down, four to go...

Something Interesting

I wish I had something interesting to write.  Unfortunately for me, lately it has just been the biggest bunch of non-sense I have ever seen since I started working when I was sixteen.  In the past, the owner's wives have caused the most grief, giving orders and telling you to do something that doesn't matter or won't help anyone at all.  This statement has nothing to do with them being women, it is related to their role in the business.  Based solely on my two experiences, the husband in each business was really the owner and manager of the operation.  Had either one of these been owned and managed by the wife, I would auto-assume that the husband would be doing the same thing as described previously. But hey, at least they own the business and in that right have the say as to what will be done around the place.

Entering a state government position at a university was ridiculously awesome at first.  The benefits were great (compared to none), the boss had her head screwed on straight, and most of the people were great to work with.  Good ideas from the boss was not something I was used to.  I actually was engaged in doing something that mattered, something with direction, heck something that was thought out and planned.  The end result was beneficial to me as a learning experience as well as the to client that needed help.

Fast forward to our previous director's retirement.  Upon her initial announcement, everyone was shocked.  She was still young and younger at heart, but she was on to bigger and better things.  She promised us all that our jobs were secure and there was nothing to worry about that she knew of....