An Assignment: The New Norm for Job Applicants. Why? | Canada News Media
Connect with us

News

An Assignment: The New Norm for Job Applicants. Why?

Published

 on

Top Business News Canada

Many job seekers spend their time and energy focusing on job searching factors beyond their control, namely how an employer designed their hiring process.

Regular readers of this column know I stress the truism that employers own their hiring process, not the job seeker. Hence, rather than criticizing an employer’s hiring process, job seekers should work with it. Criticism or wishful thinking won’t get you hired.

The latest complaint: Employers are increasingly asking candidates to complete an assignment. This ask isn’t new. Early in my career, I applied for a technical writer position to write instruction manuals for the employer’s line of software.

After the initial interview, I was asked to write instructions, following the company’s internal style guide, consisting of a maximum of eight steps on anything. (e.g., a recipe, changing a tire, repotting a plant) The employer’s ask made sense. They wanted to evaluate my methodical thought process and ability to write comprehensive instructions. I gladly did the assignment. (No, I didn’t get the job.)

There’s obvious merit in asking candidates vying for a position that involves writing, delivering presentations, or analyzing data to complete an assignment. However, candidates are increasingly being asked to complete an assignment for a broader range of jobs; why?

 

Answer: In recent years, there’s been an uptick in the number of fraudulent candidates populating the job market.

 

A recent Forbes article headline: 70% Of Workers Lie On Resumes, New Study Shows. Consider what 70% means from the hiring manager’s perspective. Essentially, 70% indicates the likelihood that the candidate the hiring manager is interviewing is likely to be lying or exaggerating about some aspect of their background. Hence, understandably, employers are taking longer to hire due to their increased diligence in weeding out fraudulent candidates.

 

There are many reasons a person lies on their resume. The most common, in my opinion:

 

  1. Desperate need of a job.
  2. Believe they’ll get away with their lies.
  3. Too lazy to do the work to obtain the required education, skills and experience, and
  4. Feel entitled to “success shortcuts.”

 

There’s no justifiable reason to lie on your resume, LinkedIn profile, or at any time throughout an employer’s hiring process. However, as the Forbes article points out, many people’s moral compass tells them it’s okay to lie to employers; thus, lying on resumes, and it can be assumed LinkedIn profiles, is common. Sadly, this practice of lying is detrimental to job seekers who present honest and transparent resumes. They’re competing against fraudulent candidates who, unjust as the reality is, have a greater chance of being selected for an interview because their lies and exaggerations make them more appealing.

Employers are catching on that the [insert position] they hired several months ago, who regurgitated current buzzwords, exhibited just the right amount of boastfulness, just south of being arrogant, and bragged of past successes, implying they’d do the same for the employer, was all talk. As a result of such bad hires, employers are increasingly asking candidates to complete an assignment.

Employers understand an assignment isn’t foolproof due diligence. The candidate can still use AI, seek help from friends, submit someone else’s work, etc. Even so, requiring candidates to complete an assignment as a due diligence step is better than nothing.

After empathizing with the reason(s) why an employer makes completing an assignment part of their hiring process, the question becomes: Should you spend unpaid time doing the assignment? 

The argument that candidates are exploited by not being paid for their time is mute since the assignment is voluntary. Additionally, I’ve yet to be presented with solid evidence that employers are using work created by candidates.

Obviously, there’s no definitive yes or no answer other than you should only do an assignment if you see it as an opportunity to demonstrate your capabilities. To be competitive with other candidates doing the same assignment, you must give 100%.

One time, I had a candidate offer to do an assignment. She strategically created an opportunity to demonstrate her skills by offering to analyze and write a recommendation report based on six months’ data. Impressed by her proactiveness, I took her up on her offer and ended up hiring her. (This is how you compete in today’s job market.)

 

An assignment allows the employer to assess a candidate in four ways:

 

  1. Are they the real deal?
  2. Are they genuinely interested in the position?
  3. How will they tailor projects to support their brand?
  4. Work ethic: Are they fully committed to tasks, or just do the minimum?

 

When you accept an assignment, make sure you:

 

  1. Understand the purpose of the assignment and what skills are being evaluated.
  2. Know the deadline, format, length, and mediums you can use. (Don’t assume!)
  3. You own your work.

 

Don’t view being asked to do an assignment as a dichotomy between your feelings about the employer’s request and you wanting the job. The yin-yang is simple: Either you want the job or don’t. Either you respect the employer’s right to design their hiring processes as they see fit, or you don’t. Because job seekers don’t control the hiring process, no grey area exists.

_____________________________________________________________________

 

Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers “unsweetened” job search advice. You can send Nick your questions to artoffindingwork@gmail.com.

News

Here’s a look at the number of women in military combat roles

Published

 on

WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has been outspoken about his opinion that women should not serve in combat roles.

Here’s a look at how many women are in such military roles, as of the 2024 budget year:

Women serving in special operations

— Navy Special Warfare combat crew: 2

— Air Force special operations: 3

— Green Berets: Fewer than 10

— Completed the Army Ranger course: more than 150

— Total serving in Army Special Operations Command as special forces, civil affairs, psychological operations and helicopter pilots, including in the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment: 260 to 270

Artillery, infantry and armor units

Thousands of women have served or currently are in jobs that until 2015 were male-only.

MARINES:

— Officers in job categories previously restricted to men, including infantry, artillery and combat engineers: Nearly 192

— Enlisted Marine in those jobs: 410

That number has steadily increased since 2018.

ARMY:

— Serving in Army infantry, armor and artillery jobs: Nearly 4,800

— Field artillery roles: More than 2,020

— Infantry: More than 902

— Armor: 864

The number of women in those jobs also has increased over the years.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading

News

Should women be allowed to fight on the front lines? Trump’s defense pick reignites the debate

Published

 on

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s nominee for defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has reignited a debate that many thought had been long settled: Should women be allowed to serve their country by fighting on the front lines?

The former Fox News commentator has made it clear, in his own book and in interviews, that he believes men and women should not serve together in combat units. If Hegseth is confirmed by the Senate, he could try to end the Pentagon’s nearly decade-old practice of making all combat jobs open to women.

“I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn’t made us more effective. Hasn’t made us more lethal. Has made fighting more complicated,” he said in a podcast hosted by Shawn Ryan on Nov. 7. Women have a place in the military, he said, just not in special operations, artillery, infantry and armor units.

Hegseth’s remarks generated a barrage of praise and condemnation. And they raised a question:

“Who’s going to replace them? Men? And we’re having trouble recruiting men into the Army right now,” said Lory Manning, a retired Navy captain who works with the Service Women’s Action Network.

The military services have struggled for years to meet recruiting goals, facing stiff competition from companies that pay more and offer similar or better benefits. And a growing population of young people aren’t interested in joining or can’t meet the physical, academic and moral requirements.

Removing women from contention for jobs, said Manning, could force the services to lower standards to bring in more men who have not graduated high school, have criminal records or score too low on physical and mental tests.

Lawmakers are divided on Hegseth’s views.

“Where do you think I lost my legs, in a bar fight? I’m pretty sure I was in combat when that happened,” snapped Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., in an CNN interview last Wednesday after Trump’s selection was announced.

Duckworth, who flew combat missions in Iraq and lost both legs when her helicopter was hit, added, “It just shows how out of touch he is with the nature of modern warfare if he thinks that we can keep women behind that sort of imaginary line.”

Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., praised Hegseth and said the reality is that certain military jobs “just need brute strength. ” But he added, “women have served incredibly well, honorably in combat roles, and I don’t think that policy is going to change, but we’ll leave it up to him.”

Others, including a number of military women, disagree.

“Pete Hegseth’s views on women in the military are outdated, prejudiced, and ignore over 20 years of evidence proving women’s effectiveness in combat roles,” said Erin Kirk, a Marine Corps combat veteran. She said women have served honorably and effectively as pilots, logistics personnel, intelligence operatives and infantry grunts.

“Hegseth’s stances aren’t just regressive, they pose a direct threat to the Department of Defense’s readiness, and by extension, to our national security,” Kirk said.

Hegseth has said he is not suggesting women should not be combat pilots, but that they should not be in jobs such as SEALs, Army Rangers, infantry, armor and artillery where “strength is a differentiator.” He insists the military lowered standards to get more women into combat roles. The services have said they did not decrease the standards for any of the combat jobs.

Hegseth’s view on women in combat reflects much of the debate over the past nine years, in the wake of then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s order in late 2015 that the military open all military jobs to women. That change followed three years of study and wrangling and was a formal recognition that thousands of women had served — and many were wounded or killed — on battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Carter said then that the military could no longer afford to exclude half the population from high-risk military posts and that any man or woman who meets the standards should be able to serve.

The Marine Corps was fiercely opposed to the idea and sought an exemption, which was denied. Special operations forces in surveys done in 2015 and more recently, said women did not have the physical or mental strength to serve in elite commando units and doing so could hurt the units’ effectiveness and lower the standards.

The numbers are small, but women have passed the grueling qualification courses to join special operations units. Two are serving as Navy Special Warfare combat crewmen, three in Air Force special operations units and fewer than 10 are Green Berets.

More than 150 women have completed the Army Ranger course, and several hundred more are serving in Army Special Operations Command jobs such as civil affairs, psychological operations and helicopter pilots, including in the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment.

And, more broadly, thousands of women have served or currently are in jobs that until 2015 were male-only, including in Army and Marine Corps artillery, infantry and armor units.

Lowering standards has been a key talking point for Hegseth.

By opening combat slots to women, “we’ve changed the standards in putting them there, which means you’ve changed the capability of that unit,” Hegseth said in the podcast interview.

Both male and female troops were outspoken since the start of the debate in their opposition to any reduction in standards for the jobs.

Manning, the Navy captain, said Hegseth is conflating two separate issues on standards.

The services do adjust requirements for the annual physical fitness test according to a service member’s age and gender, but they do not adjust the requirements for specific jobs.

Every job, said Manning, “has a set of occupational standards that have to be met.” Those range from physical strength and capabilities to things such as color blindness or academic testing. “Those, by law, have got to be gender neutral. And they are, and they have been for years,” she said.

Monica Meeks, who lives near Fort Campbell, Kentucky, was in the Army for 20 years and served in Iraq. She said she served with women in a variety of infantry jobs, including the first female platoon sergeant in the 18th Airborne Corps.

“When people say women shouldn’t serve in a combat zone, like an IED (improvised explosive device) can happen at any time. So there is no front line in these wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Meeks said.

___

Associated Press writer Kristin M. Hall in Adams, Tennessee, contributed to this report.



Source link

Continue Reading

News

NATO’s newest members update their civil preparedness guides for risk of war

Published

 on

HELSINKI (AP) — Sweden and Finland, which recently gave up neutrality and joined NATO following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, sent out updated civil preparedness guides on Monday with instructions how to survive in war.

The guides are similar to those in Denmark and Norway, though none mentions Russia by name.

In January, Sweden’s former military commander-in-chief Gen. Micael Bydén said it openly: Swedes should mentally prepare for the possibility of war. Sweden in March formally joined NATO as the 32nd member of the transatlantic military alliance, nearly a year after Finland.

The updated Swedish guide explains how to respond to an attack with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons: “Take cover in the same way as with an airstrike. Shelters provide the best protection. After a couple days, the radiation has decreased sharply.”

“It is no secret that the security situation has deteriorated since the previous brochure was issued in 2018,” Civil Defense Minister Carl-Oskar Bohlin told a press conference last month. The Swedish Baltic Sea island of Gotland sits a little more than 300 kilometers (186 miles) from the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad.

In Finland, which shares a 1,340-kilometer (832-mile) land border with Russia, the guide is compiled by the government, which has stressed that “preparedness is a civic skill in the current global situation.”

The Nordic countries all urge people to stockpile drinking water, canned food, medicine, heating, toilet paper, money and flashlights and candles. And if possible, keep the car fully refueled.

The checklist also includes iodine tablets, in case of a nuclear event.

___

Olsen reported from Copenhagen.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version