I think I'd be awesome at it, regardless...
May 19, 2013 2:38 PM Subscribe
I applied for a position and I don't fit the qualifications. Was that bad?
I applied for a transfer to a new position within my organization. This would not be a promotion - it's a lateral move. However, some people think it's more of a big deal than my current position because the people that fill this position are typically very knowledgeable and good at what they do. I spoke to someone who currently holds the position and she felt that I'd be a good fit for the job.
A few weeks ago they asked anyone who is considering the position to submit their name to our supervisor, so I did. After that deadline passed they released the qualifications for the position, and said that anyone who is still interested could submit a formal transfer request. The qualifications would be used together with seniority as two guidelines when deciding who to hire. I don't have a lot of seniority. I also don't fully meet all of the qualifications - I partially meet them. However, the qualifications were written ten years ago and I feel a lot has changed in that time, and I'd still be good at the job. I figured, "What the hell, it couldn't hurt," and submitted my request. I figured that if I really wasn't the person for the job that I just wouldn't get it.
Now I've come to hear rumors that the process for hiring for this position has favoritism heavily in play, and I've even had someone come straight out and tell me that if I was hired for the position that there would be a lot of hatred coming my way.
So my question is this:
Was it wrong of me to apply for a position when I knew I didn't meet all of the qualifications? I fully intended to be 100% honest about where I did and did not meet the things they laid out.
How common is it to apply for a job within your organization when you don't meet all of the qualifications?
I applied for a transfer to a new position within my organization. This would not be a promotion - it's a lateral move. However, some people think it's more of a big deal than my current position because the people that fill this position are typically very knowledgeable and good at what they do. I spoke to someone who currently holds the position and she felt that I'd be a good fit for the job.
A few weeks ago they asked anyone who is considering the position to submit their name to our supervisor, so I did. After that deadline passed they released the qualifications for the position, and said that anyone who is still interested could submit a formal transfer request. The qualifications would be used together with seniority as two guidelines when deciding who to hire. I don't have a lot of seniority. I also don't fully meet all of the qualifications - I partially meet them. However, the qualifications were written ten years ago and I feel a lot has changed in that time, and I'd still be good at the job. I figured, "What the hell, it couldn't hurt," and submitted my request. I figured that if I really wasn't the person for the job that I just wouldn't get it.
Now I've come to hear rumors that the process for hiring for this position has favoritism heavily in play, and I've even had someone come straight out and tell me that if I was hired for the position that there would be a lot of hatred coming my way.
So my question is this:
Was it wrong of me to apply for a position when I knew I didn't meet all of the qualifications? I fully intended to be 100% honest about where I did and did not meet the things they laid out.
How common is it to apply for a job within your organization when you don't meet all of the qualifications?
. However, the qualifications were written ten years ago and I feel a lot has changed in that time, and I'd still be good at the job. I figured, "What the hell, it couldn't hurt," and submitted my request. I figured that if I really wasn't the person for the job that I just wouldn't get it.
Fair enough.
Was it wrong of me to apply for a position when I knew I didn't meet all of the qualifications?
Does not compute. You said yourself you felt qualified for the job and the rest is up to them. That's all there is to it, right?
posted by bleep at 2:46 PM on May 19, 2013
Fair enough.
Was it wrong of me to apply for a position when I knew I didn't meet all of the qualifications?
Does not compute. You said yourself you felt qualified for the job and the rest is up to them. That's all there is to it, right?
posted by bleep at 2:46 PM on May 19, 2013
I have always ignored any and all qualification requirements. On one occasion a rival candidate complained to HR who responded by asking me to take some fancy exams to prove my intellect. Sounds like you have some small minded nasty people around you. Rest assured they are everywhere. Just do the best job you can and keep an eye out for the nasty folk. Good luck.
posted by BenPens at 2:47 PM on May 19, 2013
posted by BenPens at 2:47 PM on May 19, 2013
Best answer: Nope, you're fine. Qualifications listed in a job description are less requirements and more a wish list.
Much like empath, I've never been qualified at all for any of my jobs, and I've been stellar at all of them.
It seems like you should be more worried about the possibility that you work in a toxic environment.
posted by punchtothehead at 2:52 PM on May 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
Much like empath, I've never been qualified at all for any of my jobs, and I've been stellar at all of them.
It seems like you should be more worried about the possibility that you work in a toxic environment.
posted by punchtothehead at 2:52 PM on May 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
From an anonymous commenter:
I'm about to transfer from a job for which I'm highly qualified and horrible at to one I have no qualifications for or experience in, but where I know I will shine.posted by restless_nomad at 3:09 PM on May 19, 2013
Good luck!
I've hired many people. People who were qualified on paper and turned out to suck, people who were not terribly well qualified on paper and turned out great, and every permutation in between.
The only kind of resume I hate to get is the one that makes me think they didn't even read the job description. There are times when the mismatch is so profound that I think they were kidding themselves. Still, what did they lose by applying?
The comments you described sound like politics and simply trying to thin the herd of rivals by discouraging some. The fact that they're speaking to you this way tells me *they* take you at least somewhat seriously.
There are clearly a few jobs out there for which the qualifications are highly specific and technical. Neurosurgery comes to mind. Most of the rest are 99% attitude. Showing up on time, having a good attitude, that sort of thing. As an internal candidate, you are presumably much more of a known quantity in that regard.
Good luck!
posted by randomkeystrike at 3:29 PM on May 19, 2013
The only kind of resume I hate to get is the one that makes me think they didn't even read the job description. There are times when the mismatch is so profound that I think they were kidding themselves. Still, what did they lose by applying?
The comments you described sound like politics and simply trying to thin the herd of rivals by discouraging some. The fact that they're speaking to you this way tells me *they* take you at least somewhat seriously.
There are clearly a few jobs out there for which the qualifications are highly specific and technical. Neurosurgery comes to mind. Most of the rest are 99% attitude. Showing up on time, having a good attitude, that sort of thing. As an internal candidate, you are presumably much more of a known quantity in that regard.
Good luck!
posted by randomkeystrike at 3:29 PM on May 19, 2013
In my organization, it's rare, but only because we're beholden to legal statutes that literally mean we cannot hire someone who doesn't meet the qualifications.
However, the "qualifications" are usually written like this:
The specific list, if provided at all, is non-negotiable, just like the official "qualifications"; if you don't prove you meet those requirements they won't even call to say "thanks for your application."
They're significantly more flexible on the big default list of capabilities; I don't think I've ever seen the commission charged with ensuring people are qualified say "well, Joe didn't prove he's an expert at Excel, so you have to do the whole process again." They absolutely have done that with the education and experience requirements.
It's up to the hiring manager on all the middle-ground cases; every manager I know has a spectacularly unique attitude on training vs. hiring skills (so in HR we have to work with them closely and ask lots of questions, lest they get upset when they see who we've brought in to interview.)
And, none of this would ever, ever, ever come into play with a truly lateral move in my organization, by definition. The word "lateral" in your question comes across as very strange in this context, actually (but my personal context is probably not much like yours.)
As a general rule, the bigger the organization, the more hard-nosed they become about specific qualifications.
posted by SMPA at 3:37 PM on May 19, 2013
However, the "qualifications" are usually written like this:
Has a bachelor's degree in [field, field, field, field] or a closely related field, and two years of experience in a position that does [blah blah blah.] (Up to two years of experience may be substituted for the required education on a year-for-year basis. A Master's degree in business administration or a closely related field may substitute for the required experience.)Then they have huge list of "abilities," which are things the person should be able to do (like "read, write, and speak the English language fluently; use Microsoft Word; lift up to 50lbs.") Sometimes on specific assignments the hiring manager will actually add very narrow things the person has to be able to do ("use ASP.net, Java, and SQL.")
The specific list, if provided at all, is non-negotiable, just like the official "qualifications"; if you don't prove you meet those requirements they won't even call to say "thanks for your application."
They're significantly more flexible on the big default list of capabilities; I don't think I've ever seen the commission charged with ensuring people are qualified say "well, Joe didn't prove he's an expert at Excel, so you have to do the whole process again." They absolutely have done that with the education and experience requirements.
It's up to the hiring manager on all the middle-ground cases; every manager I know has a spectacularly unique attitude on training vs. hiring skills (so in HR we have to work with them closely and ask lots of questions, lest they get upset when they see who we've brought in to interview.)
And, none of this would ever, ever, ever come into play with a truly lateral move in my organization, by definition. The word "lateral" in your question comes across as very strange in this context, actually (but my personal context is probably not much like yours.)
As a general rule, the bigger the organization, the more hard-nosed they become about specific qualifications.
posted by SMPA at 3:37 PM on May 19, 2013
If there's one thing I've become convinced of in recent years, progressing in one's field or getting a particular job is only partially determined based on qualifications (on paper) or merit. You cannot underestimate the value of soft-skills, personal demeanor, history with a company, ability to work with an arbitrary set of people with skills that are already in place, plus a number of others things that could potentially make you a valuable worker that can't be explicitly posted. In part the qualifications are important and you can't entirely blow them off (or consider them non-essential), but if you feel that you might still do well with the job based on the skills that you have, I don't think it's harmful to apply. If you've ever seen the process by which they generally weed out people who aren't qualified, it can be pretty mechanical on the HR end of things, and those who aren't qualified really aren't kept in mind for very long as the hiring committee moves onto a more drawn out hiring process for those who are.
Now I've come to hear rumors that the process for hiring for this position has favoritism heavily in play, and I've even had someone come straight out and tell me that if I was hired for the position that there would be a lot of hatred coming my way.
Regarding your coworkers, that sounds like a work culture issue that is separate from the details of this job. You can't run around worrying about people's perception of you for every work decision that you make, and if the work environment is such that you have to, that's horrible. So, if that is working itself into your career calculus, I'd wonder about where you are working in the first place, which is an entirely different question. Also, if you get hired, it's not you who made the final decision, so it would be entirely misdirected anger. You might need to decide if you could live with that, but it would not be warranted for your coworkers to express it.
posted by SpacemanStix at 3:40 PM on May 19, 2013
Now I've come to hear rumors that the process for hiring for this position has favoritism heavily in play, and I've even had someone come straight out and tell me that if I was hired for the position that there would be a lot of hatred coming my way.
Regarding your coworkers, that sounds like a work culture issue that is separate from the details of this job. You can't run around worrying about people's perception of you for every work decision that you make, and if the work environment is such that you have to, that's horrible. So, if that is working itself into your career calculus, I'd wonder about where you are working in the first place, which is an entirely different question. Also, if you get hired, it's not you who made the final decision, so it would be entirely misdirected anger. You might need to decide if you could live with that, but it would not be warranted for your coworkers to express it.
posted by SpacemanStix at 3:40 PM on May 19, 2013
Hey, you're taking a chance, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Many people, including myself, have applied for jobs they weren't qualified for, and many employers hire them anyway. So what if you don't have all the qualifications - you certainly believe you can do it. And hopefully they'll take a chance on you! Good luck! :)
posted by MeatheadBrokeMyChair at 3:55 PM on May 19, 2013
posted by MeatheadBrokeMyChair at 3:55 PM on May 19, 2013
Now I've come to hear rumors that the process for hiring for this position has favoritism heavily in play, and I've even had someone come straight out and tell me that if I was hired for the position that there would be a lot of hatred coming my way.
Whoever told you that sounds like a douche. When it comes to internal positions, particularly popular ones, someone will always have sour grapes when they don't get hired. Always. Rather than blame themselves, they'll always find someone else to blame.
This has nothing to do with the successful applicant.
posted by smoke at 3:59 PM on May 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
Whoever told you that sounds like a douche. When it comes to internal positions, particularly popular ones, someone will always have sour grapes when they don't get hired. Always. Rather than blame themselves, they'll always find someone else to blame.
This has nothing to do with the successful applicant.
posted by smoke at 3:59 PM on May 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
you did nothing wrong. acting with chutzpah is a good thing in the job market. it displays confidence and initiative. i think i'd stay away from that disgruntled co-worker who made the hatred comment. they sound a little toxic.
posted by wildflower at 5:25 PM on May 19, 2013
posted by wildflower at 5:25 PM on May 19, 2013
Did the person who told you about the "hatred" also apply for this position?
posted by dlugoczaj at 7:32 PM on May 19, 2013
posted by dlugoczaj at 7:32 PM on May 19, 2013
Response by poster: As an update, I got the position. Thanks all!
posted by christinetheslp at 3:32 PM on June 7, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by christinetheslp at 3:32 PM on June 7, 2013 [3 favorites]
« Older Mr. Darcy in modern-day New York? | Writers of Metafilter, please help me stay on... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by empath at 2:43 PM on May 19, 2013 [17 favorites]