#findingtherightfit

As the holidays approach, organizations see an increase in volunteering. There seems to be something in the air that triggers the need to help the less-fortunate, but the questions of why they volunteer and where they volunteer are always intriguing to track. 

“Stephanie Denning, an ESRC-funded PhD student in the University of Bristol’s School of Geographical Sciences, conducted the research over a three-year period, analysing the experiences of the people who volunteered with a MakeLunch project.”

The study here found a variety of reasons for volunteering at the MakeLunch project including, but not limited to, religious callings, political frustrations, and poverty concerns. From the LeRoux and Feeney reading this week, we discussed three motivations for volunteering - altruism, egoism, and coercive. I see mostly altruism in the group of volunteers based on the information provided, but there is a hint of egoism as well. The general concerns for others in food poverty areas reflect altruism because the volunteers simply want to help those that are affected. The egoism shines through the emotional responses to political happenings. These volunteers are looking for an outlet away from negative political events, hence they are openly searching for something in return for volunteering. 

Another section in the study can be linked to LeRoux and Feeney’s discussion of finding the right fit for volunteers within an organization. Denning gives advice to the organization that they need to focus on making volunteers feel comfortable, welcome, useful, etc., in order to maintain them long-term. LeRoux and Feeney touch on this by establishing the need for volunteer positions to align with the person’s needs, goals, and interests. Volunteers leave positions if they feel underappreciated or if they are not able to utilize their skills and abilities. 

So one of my good friends recently was recruited to work at an undisclosed company and was basically flattered and groomed to great lengths throughout the interview process. Unfortunately though, she recently received the news that they decided to move forward with a different candidate, someone internal.

Someone who already works there.

Now, if you've ever applied to a job, you'd understand the rest of what I'm going to say. We expect equal opportunity when we apply to any position but regretfully, just like some matters of life, not everything is fair. I definitely feel for her, not only because I work for this company but also because I think external candidates have it much more difficult when it comes to getting their foot in the door. They're taking time off of their work and personal lives to look for positions most compatible to their expertise and working harder to get the attention of the company's hiring staff. An employee who already works at the company has a much easier job getting in touch with the hiring manager, better work records and references, as well as a more laid back candidacy process as opposed to going through the traditional "smiling through your teeth to the strange receptionist and sitting uptight in a lobby before heading into an interview room with the A/C turned on so high that it feels like Antarctica" experience.

Ok, I was a little over-exaggerating that last part.

But if you're still reading, I'd like to introduce a comparable scenario that I found improved my understanding of it all. Say you've just started dating this girl and by the 4th date, she breaks the news to you that she'd rather start seeing someone else. Which, at first, is puzzling because she was totally into you when you first met, and fairly inviting. She even took you back to her place after the third date to "hang out" but you kept a respectable distance the entire time because you wanted to act like a gentleman and not risk forcing anything. And then now, she says that her close guy friend recently confessed his want for a relationship with her a week back and that she's deeply considered it since then, finally following her gut and saying yes to the proposal. Then you're sitting there, drinking your drink, taking larger and larger sips as what she's telling you starts to awkwardly sink in deeper, and finally you think to yourself, "what a f*cking waste of time".

One of the key concepts in economics is opportunity cost, and your investment simply did not return what you expected for reasons completely out of your control. You wanted that job and that girl (sorta) even though the location was pretty inconvenient and she had that thing where she chewed really loudly, but it still sucks to not get what you want (even if you didn't really want it that bad) because of someone else's preferences. If you had chosen to talk to that other, drunker girl at the bar, you'd probably be having a less awkward time right about now. Or, maybe not. But despite the warranted frustration you possess towards the situation, addressing the cons and the pros (which you don't really want to think about just yet) might just help you see that the positivity does outweigh the negativity.

Say, I wanted the position that my friend was interviewing for. I work in a different department, and decide that I'd like to apply to work in Google ads and be an online sales rep. The commission is good, I like B2C work, the hours are way more flexible, and I get to switch buildings and be surrounded by pretty women who work in the new sales building they just built (they call it the "Honey-plex" here). My resume is already floating around, I already have a thorough understanding of Google's ad network and the hiring manager and I can easily get in contact with each other and build a rapport over lunch or coffee whenever our schedules open up. Casual equates to less barriers, which equates to more honesty, which leads to trust. Trust is tantamount. But a real merit of internal hiring is more than just building relationships with key people, it's the fact that there is less doubt. You're presumed to know about the position and department, and if you were hired by the company before, that in it of itself is a positive attribute outside candidates don't have. If I reached out the person hiring for the opening, they most likely would assume that I've done my research on what the job requires and that I've made an informed decision on why I want to make the switch. It's also simple for them to contact my current manager and review my past work performance and grab a reference. Then after the doubt is cleared away, they can assume that there is a good reason why I'd want to hypothetically hop departments.

So there, it all boils down to trust and right back to personal investment. If I've taken the initiative to hold out for as long as I can until the opportunity comes up, I've already proven that I am a trustworthy individual. I generally might know more because I've been there longer and if not, I'm able to access the information in a more easier manner. As for people like my friend who were turned down for the job position, there's still something to be learned from this. It's a good opportunity for them to not only just  reflect on their perceived value in the job market, but really to see that maybe the company just wasn't the right fit for them. How companies treat candidates really reflects how they're run. If you were respected, constantly informed and treated well during the interview process, the company most likely has a history of investing in their employees and keeping them for the long haul. If you were a rushed hire, they probably don't have a high employee retention rate, in which case, you were secretly blessed. Same concepts apply to the dating scenario. If that girl couldn't see that her best guy friend was the right one for her all along, she'd mostly likely take your ass for granted, and who wants to date a bitch like that?