There is a term
that is thrown around freely and loosely by recruitment consultants, which is networking. Let’s take the root of
the conjugated word – network – it is always associated with something that is
positive and thus, when they say, ‘you
must network’, it invariably has a positive vibe to it and the persons
listening are intrigued by what the speaker or the counsellor has to say.
It sounds very
good when they throw in positive words like – ‘givers gain in the network’ (a
way of saying quid pro quo) and how
larger your network, the more your chances of finding a job. While I agree that
it is good to have a large network of people – I have been a beneficiary of it
myself wherein I always have someone to consult when in doubt over a topic I do
not possess the expertise.
However, my
bone of contention is hardly over the act of having a network and rather, over
the manner in which you are advised to proceed with acquiring this network. A
point is to be noted here is that I am talking only from the context of
recruitment.
To start with,
there is the website LinkedIn, a social networking site for professionals. I
have had a LinkedIn account myself for nearly nine years and people in my
networks included people from my personal relationships, school, university or
workplace and that was that. I observed a change in around 2015 where I started
getting requests from random people whom I have never met before, the chance of
meeting them in the foreseeable future being remote, and the only common aspect
being that we might be in a similar profession or possess the same
qualification. Sometimes, it might be an aspirant and this observation was not
isolated, a few of my colleagues also remarked that ‘LinkedIn is getting annoying, I am getting multiple requests from
complete strangers’.
Little did I
realise back then that this was a result of ‘network
with professionals’ advice from consultants. Again, adding strangers,
sending messages to a stranger is not something that I fundamentally object so
long as the stranger has consented to
receiving them (I take the acceptance of the connection request to be approval
for receiving messages from the connection). After all, it is the same as
meeting strangers at a party and striking up a conversation.
The common
advice to jobseekers is to expand network and message as many people as
possible. If the intention behind this is to only seek first hand insights on
working in the place / profession where you wish to work, it is fantastic!
However, you are suggested this as a means to overcome two aspects to a job
search – to become aware of jobs that were never published or known OR to
circumvent a rejection of your earlier application made through the website.
It is well known
that a lot of their filtering of CVs is done by algorithms and thus, most
rejections are not the result of human decision making whereas if you make your
credentials known to a person working within, they might overlook the system
and still offer an interview.
Again, all this
sounds fine and there seems nothing prima facie wrong about it. However, it is
an issue when you are often told that the reason why you are yet to land a job
is because you have not networked enough.
What needs to be understood here is that chatting up random people is not
everyone’s cup of tea, it is probably an introvert’s nightmare whereas the
person might be very comfortable to fill up forms over and over again in a
portal.
I understand
that certain jobs require an extroverted personality and an introvert cannot
demand equality in such circumstances; however, if the same is demanded in jobs
which does not require much of outside interaction, that is where the playing
field is no longer level and candidates are no longer tested for their competencies
but rather, merely based on whom they know and whom they have talked to before.
While one could
say – this is the system, accept it and
be a part of it; it is easier said than done. Let us take a situation,
there are tickets for a show high on demand and there is a counter selling
tickets, with ten tickets remaining, ten people are in the queue; another group
enters through the back entrance since they know the event manager and get the
last ten tickets – fundamentally, got ahead of the queue at the cost of those
who were already there. One could argue that it is the event manager’s choice
as to whom they need to let in and whom to sell it to. However, in this case,
most of us would agree that it was not normal and it was unfair on the people
already in the queue. But then, what would be your reaction if I say that if
these ten in the queue were really keen, they should have tried to somehow find
the event manager on Facebook, befriend the person and got the tickets and that
it was their fault that they were not
proactive enough to get the tickets. Much as I played the devil’s advocate
in this statement, I find the logic completely ridiculous.
However, that is
exactly what we are doing right now, and the consultants and head-hunters from
all across the board are trying to normalise this situation. I have even heard
suggestions like, ‘if they don’t respond
to your mail, try to find a directory where they have disclosed their phone
number and call them’ – that is something that I find blatantly unethical
and the extent to which this is being normalised is shocking.
In a way, I feel
that the terms networking, cold e-mail are
euphemisms created because if you say ‘stalk
someone online, find out about them, get all details and get into conversation’,
sounds less appealing and attractive than saying ‘network with people online and get into a conversation’ even
though both of them are prima facie the same.
The situation
here is not normal and it leads us to a situation where the networks generated
are no longer with altruistic motives (which is normally the case) which could
lead to pecuniary relationships but rather, in this case, we are clearly going
in seeking for something with ulterior motives, with no real intention to build
a network and probably not give a second thought about the person with whom we
had a conversation unless we had got we had wanted (I can’t paint everybody
with the same brush but I can certainly speak for the average).
To conclude, I
would say that this system seems to have been unconditionally accepted and
since I am not on the other side, I cannot offer solutions but the very fact
that I am raising my voice calling this out to be not normal (hoping more join
the bandwagon), perhaps it could trigger the thought and the situation could be
better in the future.
Have
a nice day,
Andy
Andy
