HR Magazine

The test results came in and made interesting reading. Here are a few of them: • I am capable of communicating technical ideas under the pressure of providing accurate information • I am comfortable communicating concepts and ideas using a diverse vocabulary • I am proficient in the interpretation of words and language • I do not typically have difficulty interpreting the expressed thoughts and ideas of others • Building my listening skills will only improve my results (well written criticism there!) • I am fast performer when handling complex decisions based on numeric data • I can effectively interpret numeric data and mathematical information • My work style is compatible with a relaxed pace, approaching tasks without being hasty or rushed • I am usually enthusiastic about facing change and unexpected challenges Obviously there is a lot more, but this gives a taste. Overall I think it's accurate, and I like the critical parts as I find that to be more useful; where I need to change. As in the example here, the criticism is written with a positive slant. The recommended work areas are creative (no surprise) and financial/administrative. The second could relate to my good 'housekeeping' in the workplace - cataloguing and keeping on top of things. That's the admin part, unsure about the financial bit. Top of the recommended jobs list is librarian! Others are interior designer, statistician, set designer and vocational counselor. A good exercise and hopefully I can use the information productively.

I had an interesting experience this week: I completed a psychometric (is that how it's spelt?) test. I friend recommended the process and I thought it a good idea to be analysed to find out if I am better suited pursuing a different career or changing my approach; all good stuff indeed. There were about six sections with up to 20 questions in each. Some were straightforward with yes/no answers along the lines of: 'do you think bosses are overpaid' or ' do you prefer to be leading'. This type of question I was able to answer fairly rapidly, but there were some tough ones: sums! It's been a long time since I have had to do maths without the aid of a calculator (that was frowned upon for the test, how dare they!), and boy, were some difficult. My notepad was awash with figures scrawled all over it. The test took about an hour and I enjoyed it. I am now impatiently waiting for the results so I can plan my next job-search attack with fresh ideas, maybe in an area I hadn't considered before. Watch this space.

Job centres. They are wonderful places, full of people looking for work and people whose role is to provide help and guidance. Job centre (JC) staff haven't grasped that we are in recession and jobs are very difficult to come by. I now have to attend the JC weekly for six weeks, for what purpose I am unsure, but I was hoping for the aforementioned help. This clearly isn't the case: it is purely and simply a way of leaning on me, to apply pressure, as I am obviously living the life of Riley on the dole. I have to detail what I have done to find work during the previous week; the 'helpful' JC person gets a load of jobs up on her computer for me to browse (as I never, ever do this at home); the jobs are always unsuitable (how surprising); and I am treated like a lazy, benefit-loving slob. Last week I did have a rant, albeit a controlled one. I attempted to open JC person's eyes to my current plight: I am receiving £44.50 a week in dole money; this is £16 less than the maximum (some maximum!) because I foolishly didn't squander my earnings and have some savings, from which I am expected to supplement the government; I am at home in cold conditions as I cannot afford to have the heating on during the day; I am bored as there is only so much job searching I can do; and I asked her after saying all this: "do you truly believe I am not doing all that I possibly can to find a job?". I did get a shoulder shrug and a mumble, so I think it sank in. I also said that JCs need to adapt to changing circumstances (recession anyone?) and to not stick to the party line drawn up years ago when times were better and to stop treating everyone as if being unemployed is a career move.

Last week I mentioned two interviews I had. Here is the tale of the second one due to a slip-up by the interviewer. I don't usually name companies or agents, but this one warrants it. The company is called Smartbox and it's based in south-west London. I am applying for anything that is vaguely within my scope, and this was one such role. It was a form of project management involving sales and marketing on a fixed six-month contract. The company provides a range 'special occasion' breaks, ie: pampering weekends, driving sports cars etc, and is employing about 15 people for this temp marketing position. The interview started very well as I was asked if I would consider working in another role at Smartbox (full-time, but no job specified) as my skills and experience were appreciated. I thought "blimey, this is looking good". After a short Q&A session, I was asked if I minded working with younger people and also being managed by one as the company is full of them. The woman then said this: "we don't usually employ people your age". She did say "usually", which implies it isn't always, but I doubt that considering being told about the company being staffed by young people. I think this could quite possibly be against the law. Suffice to say, I didn't get the job nor was there any mention of the "possible full-time" position. As far I am aware, the statement about employing people my age goes against current legislation, but should I pursue it? How do I prove it? What can I gain? Maybe highlighting it to the company and causing at bit of a fuss will be satisfaction enough? We'll see.