About Author

Do Basic Factors really Matter in Job Application?

Do Basic Factors really Matter in Job Application?

It’s not that easy to land a job today. That’s even if you aim for local job listing, or try your best in industries which have รับทำ mou by some countries. |Whichever career you choose, you should pass through proper recruitment processes. 

“When you are in search of a job you need to consult many placement consultancy firms”, this was what was told to me by some of my seniors. It generally works best that way if you are a fresher seeking for your first job, is what they all believed in. I was also thinking of joining such a firm when I was searching for my first job. In this race for the search of a job I had many competitors, most of them being my friends. Few of these friends got placed very soon in reasonably good companies. I was wondering when would my turn come or will I have to consult these firms for placements and run behind them to get me a job. When one of my friends got selected, I wondered what the recruiter must have searched for before considering him fit for the job being offered. I wondered because, I felt that this friend of mine was incapable of serving that kind of job as he lacked some basics of the technology in which he was supposed to work. This suspicion that I held got confirmed when that friend of mine was thrown out of the company in few months because of his failure to serve the job. This made me think of a question which I am sure is faced by most of the candidates who are seeking for a job. The question being: Is the BASIC factor considered while recruiting by a recruiter? 

I am sure that whenever a recruiter asks a candidate to appear for an interview, the recruiter must have glimpsed through that candidates resume. As a matter of fact, some candidates don’t provide the exact genuine details in their resume in order to attract recruiters, by adding stuff (skills) which they don’t possess. This actually gives the recruiter a feel that he is considering a potentially good candidate to appear for an interview as he gets disguised by the false resume. The interview is conducted and it happens to be a HR type of interview, as in many cases the interviewer lacks the technical background to question the candidate. I guess you guys know what an HR type of interview is. Well and if the candidate is confident in giving answers then he does get selected. Lucky person! 

I feel that recruiters search for a spark in the candidate for how conversant he was and how quick he was at understanding. Based on this the choice is made for selecting the candidate (I would like to request recruiters to correct me for additional aspects that you guys seek apart from fluency and quickness). Considering the quickness and conversational competency of the candidate he is selected and is placed in an environment where both his quickness and conversational competency isn’t very much required (Here I am considering a kind of job which includes computer skills to be shown). This is where I feel recruiters must not let things run out of their hand. Immediately few questions arise: Will the candidate survive in that industry? Will the candidate have the fluency in his transition from the current knowledge state to a state where he needs to get acquainted with the business requirements of the company? 

Considering the case of my friend who was thrown out of the company we can answer with a NO to this question because we were given the brief understanding of my friend’s technical background. But the recruiter doesn’t know that the resume, he saw wasn’t genuine. The candidate may not satisfy the needs of the job profile chosen for him and he could be thrown out of the company. Well this was exactly what happened in my friend’s case. Now was this a failure on my friend’s part or on the part of the person who showed interest and confidence in recruiting him? This is a debatable question. But the answer is very simple. 

Neither the recruiter nor the candidate was solely responsible for his failure. It was a joint failure. Candidate failed to get himself adjusted to the requirements and the recruiter failed to search for what I referred to as the BASIC factor. 

This BASIC factor according to me is nothing but the “zeal” that a recruiter must search for. I hope you all agree that not a single one of us is perfect and learned to the extent knowledge extends. So what matters is the passion, zeal, enthusiasm that persists among a candidate to learn, to grasp, to educate himself. You would say that in the above case the recruiter wasn’t provided with genuine details so he can’t be wrong at his choice but I would like to ask, is it fair that based on quickness and conversational competency a recruiter must decide that a candidate is good at the job he is chosen for? I mean if it would have been a BPO job I could think he would have had a point. 

A recruiter must definitely search for conversant and quick behavior in the candidate, but he/she must also work equally hard to search for BASIC factor. As an example let’s consider a software developer (SD).A SD can be a person who knows a language/technology (Dot Net or Java, etc) and he knows how to program in those languages. A recruiter can expect conversational fluency and quick behavior in such a SD, but shouldn’t he search for a BASIC understanding of fundamentals regarding the language in which he is expected to work in the industry? This is what I refer to as the BASIC factor. If the recruiter can search for this BASIC factor or to say the zeal or passion to learn, I am sure the candidate will not let the recruiter’s decision in choosing him down. What a candidate needs is a correct orientation, which I feel only a recruiter can provide. 

Wouldn’t it be nice and beneficial for the Industry, the candidate and the recruiter, to have such an understanding of the BASIC factor? If the recruiter can think of this then I am sure that we will reduce failures. 

Mark Campus

Mark Campus is a content marketer who owns Keenan’s room. A writer by day and a reader by night, he is loath to discuss himself in third person.