Faces of Monkey: IT'S BEEN NEARLY six months since the last DFTM post, and about a year since updates become less regular, but here's an idea for a fun, new contest for DFTM readers. Send in funny monkey photos! Email them to beteille@yahoo.com. Here's the first - to get things started - with a cute little monkey bio to boot:

"I'm 48 years old, married with two children. Employed as a regional HR Manager for Graybar. I'm want to complete my degree for both personal and professional satisfaction."

Monkey Love: KEEP THOSE CARDS and letters coming:

"Hi.. I was introduced to your site recently, love it ... Despite the harsh tone relative to people like me, y'know, monkeys, the approach holds the promise of improving relations between companies and a key set of stake-holders, their future employees. I certainly see myself in some of the rants, and see plenty of room for improvement. Thanks"

Monkey Defends Self: IT TOOK MONTHS of court wrangling and at least one haughty press release, but a underqualified public employee annointed by a City monkey has, alas, legally defended her own hiring. First reported on DFTM in a post titled Schmoozers-R-Us, this email follow-up (mercifully edited down quite a bit) just came from her attorneys. Key phrase: the applicant "was given a waiver of the educational requirement." Imagine being one of the other applicants for this gig who - since they hadn't "worked with these people" - didn't didn't get to see any such waiver. Might be legal; don't make it right.

From: HughPixlerLaw@aol.com
Subject: Update to March 25, 2003 posting re Amy Bourgeron

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Hugh Pixler, Gregson and Pixler, P.C. 303 861-2702

Amy Bourgeron Vindicated By Ruling

Hearing Officer's ruling dispels City's allegations of favoritism and manipulation of hiring process. Bourgeron's attorneys request retractions of statements made by former City Councilwoman Susan Barnes-Gelt, and Denver assistant city attorney Sybil Kisken.

(MARCH 15, 2004) -- Denver Career Service Hearings Officer Daniel C. Ferguson has issued a ruling in the appeal filed by Amy Bourgeron last June concerning her forced demotion from the Deputy Manager of Aviation position. The unprecedented six-day hearing resulted in a ruling that stopped short of ordering Bourgeron's reinstatement to the position but reinforced that the process under which she was hired was open, fair and competitive.

Ferguson wrote in his ruling, "I find the evidence presented is not sufficient to support the proposition argued by the [City] that the selection process for the position of Deputy Manager of Aviation for Marketing/Government Affairs was a sham. Appellant [Ms. Bourgeron] was given a waiver of the educational requirement allowing her to compete for the position ... The evidence shows that persons involved in the process knew each other, not a surprising fact since [Ms. Bourgeron] had worked for the City of Denver since 1980, and had worked with these people in numerous capacities." [...]

Ms. Bourgeron's attorneys request retractions of statements made by former Denver City Councilwoman Susan Barnes-Gelt, and Denver assistant city attorney Sybil Kisken, who chose to publicize improperly false accusations of misconduct concerning Ms. Bourgeron's promotion.

Do What You're Told: LOTS OF INTEREST in these monkey sightings, so please accept gratuitous apologies for the lack of new posts lately. For now, satiate with this little monkey's job description disclaimer, from a Colorado TV company. And then try to think of a job that isn't like this. Seriously - who writes these things? With words like "construed" and "comply," it has to be a lawyer pecking at this monkey's keyboard:

"This description includes the major duties and responsibilities of the job. It is not to be construed as including every task required or inherent in this job. It may be occasionally necessary for employees to be assigned tasks not specifically outlined in their job description. Employees will be expected to comply with requests from their supervisors to perform these tasks."

1-900-Monkey: REFERENCE CHECKS, thanks to lawyers wagging the tails of the monkeys in HR, have been reduced to a few silly basics: confirmation of employment, start date, end date. Though they simply verify information already provided by an applicant, at least it was something useful HR monkeys could do. Well, no more. The monkeys at Foleys, a May Department Store (one of the largest employers in the United States), have taken their uselessness one step farther, forcing employers to call a pay 900 number to check references on current or former Foley's employees. Give credit to some monkey, somewhere, for turning a cost drain into a profit center, but jobseekers everywhere still want to know: how many more responsibilities can they take from the monkeys before they get rid of them altogether?

Also useless: May Department Stores' automated online employment application. The Internet form generates a one-line email that says – and this is no joke –"PLEASE COME IN AND FILL OUT AN APPLICATION."

Move It Yourself: ANNOYING JOB INTERVIEW questions abound, but this is among the silliest: "How would you move Mt. Fuji?" There's an excellent article about it and even a book - but I'm going with what my immediate circle has to say:

• ACCORDING TO DANA, an actuary: How would I move Mt. Fuji? Redraw maps and report it in a different place. The answer might have gotten me a job at Enron or Worldcom a few years ago.
  
  
• ACCORDING TO JEFF, a retirement planner: Find out how much Mt. Fuji is worth. Japan is struggling, so I would find some investors and leverage a purchase of Longs Peak. Then float some erroneous reports about its worth and continuously issue stock. Then when I have pumped the value of Longs Peak, I would approach Mt Fuji with a merger offer. After we merged, I would fire the Japanese managers and move Mt. Fuji to the United States, place it next to Longs Peak and issue more stock. I would then strip both mountains for mineral rights and lumber and sell my shares short.
  
  
• ACCORDING TO NICHOLLE, my very smart wife: My answer: Where would you LIKE to move Mt Fuji? Follow-up answer: Hmmm, that sounds like a great location for Mt. Fuji, it will match perfectly with the landscape. And I can put together the perfect team of engineers, cultural negotiators, contractors, slaves and interior designers to not only move Mt. Fuji but we can also make sure that it looks good and feels good too! Additional follow-up: What a great idea! I'm really looking forward to this project.
  
  
• ACCORDING TO ME, film industry hack: CGI. But that would probably be the most expensive way to do it.
  

Turning Tide: HOW MANY times have you heard employed friends admitting that with today's economy, they may as well bide their time with the jobs they have? Not exactly a ringing endorsement for their current employers; more of a "lesser evil" approach to career development. And their bosses and HR monkeys know it. They pile on responsibilities, eliminate benefits and do less and less about finding potential replacements. But the monkeys could be caught with their diapers downs. It turns out those supposedly content employees have their eyes wide open on the job market, according to statistics from this article:

• Half of workers surveyed by Harris Interactive want to make a job change.
  
• Of these, 46 percent want to do so in the next six months and 75 percent in the next year.
  
• In the past two years, about 75 percent of members of the career-networking group, The Five O'Clock Club, came in unemployed; in the past seven weeks, that figure has flipped - to 75 percent employed.

Dumb It Down Again: IN AN AGE of "tight" resources, and even tighter-assed HR monkeys, open positions are rarely filled by "overqualified" applicants. The argument I always hear is that "overqualified" people (those who are too smart or too experienced or too fast for the job) won't stay with the position very long. No loyalty, the HR monkeys often complain. Funny. Look who's talking about loyalty. The same monkeys who have to delete millions of jobs each year because they can't manage the "human resources" they already have.

That's why it's no surprise to find this straight-faced recommendation - written by the monkeys themselves - to "consider downplaying your experience" when applying for a job that is supposedly beneath your career level. More on how to write a dumbed-down resume here, and the most monkey-ass-kissingest bit quoted here:

"Don't lie about your past, but use job titles to emphasize only those functional skills relevant to the prospective job. On your resume, for example, instead of 'Director: Managed a department of 50 finance managers,' write 'Director/Financial Management: Managed the company's finances.' Try not to focus too much on next steps within the company, and be flexible about reporting relationships, working conditions and salary. This will help convince your prospective employer that you're enthusiastic about the job and will stick with it!"

Fuck That Job: HATE TO steal the perfect title from a fellow monkey-bashing site, but how in the world can someone type up this enormous job description - with enough age discrimination to gag Seabiscuit - and then tack a pitiful $11.81 hourly wage on it? Annually, that's less than $19,000 for a (semi-retired) person who can put up with all this (including typos):

Community Involment Publications Publisher Assistant

MUST BE AGE 55 OR OVER TO APPLY
HOURLY WAGE: $11.81
HOURS / WEEK: 32
QUALIFICATIONS:

• Minimum 10 years experience in journalism, marketing, communications, public affairs or related field; or degree in Journalism, English or related field.
  
• Oral and written communication skills.
  
• Publication production skills.
  
• Skill in understanding and communicating complex, sometimes highly technical, issues to a variety of publics in understandable terms.
  
• Skill in conflict management and resolution.
  
• Familiar with IBM-compatible computer hardware, MS Word, Word Perfect, Desk-top publishing applications, Windows, Graphics applications, fax and copier.

DUTIES:

• Develops written communications for the public as directed by EPA staff - fact sheets, brochures, other publications, news releases, etc. for Superfund and Federal Facility sites.
  
• Assures that all written communications are properly planned for with adequate time for review.
  
• Assures that written materials meet agency publication standards.
  
• Coordinates production of written materials with program staff, contractors, printers, as directed by EPA staff.
  
• Lays out publications and presentation materials.
  
• Develops graphics for publications and presentations.
  
• Researches topics and composes text for publications.
  
• Reviews and edits work products of other Community Involvement Coordinators.
  
• Serves as Community Involvement Assistant on Superfund sites. Serves as Community Involvement Coordinator for Superfund Federal Facility projects.
  
• Works with site team to establish and maintain two-way communication with stakeholders impacted by EPA actions.
  
• Fosters and maintains a partnership among citizens, states and other agencies in conducting public participation and communication programs.
  
• Assists communities/states/other federal agencies in understanding EPA programs.
  
• Supports team through development of community involvement plans and strategies.
  
• Assists team with implementation of community involvement plans and strategies.
  
• Supports site/project teams as community involvement coordinator.
  
• Reviews and comments on federal facility or state-drafted community involvement communications.
  
• Drafts EPA community involvement communications.
  
• Plans and attends appropriate team meetings and site-related meetings either at EPA, at the state or in the community.
  
• Participates in community involvement activities under the direction of EPA staff.
  
• Researches and analyzes communities affected by site activities. Identifies key groups and stakeholders.
  
• Keeps supervisior and team project manager apprised of activity status and issues

OTHER:

• Ongoing OSHA Health and Safety Training required.
  
• Ongoing Community Involvement Training required.
  
• Position requires access to privately owned vehicle (POV) to travel to local public meetings, meetings within the state of Colorado and as transportation to the airport.
  
• Overnight travel and travel by air 2-4 days/month.
  
• Medical Monitoring required due to presence at Superfund sites.
  
• Safety gear required.

HOURLY WAGE: $11.81

Same Dough As 'The Restaurant' - AS IF résumé word-searches and voicemail black holes aren't insulting enough, DiMassimo Brand Advertising is raising the injury of feeding monkeys to a new level. DiMassimo, a small New York City agency two miles away from the famed Madison Avenue concentration of its competitors, is putting job candidates through a week-long Survivor-style "trial." Obstacles include developing campaigns for current DiMassimo clients (Crunch Fitness and Instinet) and an attempt to get a meeting with the agency's dream client (JetBlue Airways).

The grand prize ain't Survivor money - or even half that. And it's nowhere near the value of those two campaigns job candidates will develop on spec, or that priceless meeting with JetBlue.

THE PRIZE is what DiMassimo calls a "real, full-time entry level position" paying, according to the Wall Street Journal, "from $25,000 to $30,000 a year." Sound low? Never mind that it's already subpar for the winner of a contest being filmed for a future reality television series. The compensation is even worse when you consider "the median expected salary for a typical account executive in New York" falls between $59,099 and 78,794, according to Salary.com. DiMassimo's offer is more in line with what New York City waiters - like those ambitious Rocco's servers on NBC's The Restaurant - stand to make. And I'm sure good ones make far more with tips - and make much more compelling reality TV.

This reaction from Susan Friedman, a New York recruiter specializing in the ad industry, quoted in the WSJ: "People will come out in droves - they are desperate." Just the sort of monkey you'd want representing you in your next job search, eh?

You've Got Questions: NO ONE SEEMS to have answers. Here's the best examination yet of the Thomas-Jung Type Indicator handwriting game increasingly used by HR monkeys as a hiring test. Thanks to one of DFTM's extremely perceptive and bright readers who sent these questions to the people behind TJTI. No convincing responses just yet, but we'll keep you posted.

• I am unable to find credible academic references to Thomas-Jung on the Internet. Are there any - whether on the Internet or actually in scholarly journals? If so, can you send a brief bibliography?
  
• What is the relationship between HireGolden and TJTI Inc?
  
• What is the point of the arithmetic error on the TJTI page?
  
• I make a point of placing blank writing paper over a ruled page so that I can better align my handwriting. Does this affect the test results and, if so, how?
  
• Does it change the result of the test if one is right-handed versus left-handed? Or if one slants letters 'forward' versus 'backward'?
  
• I type very, very fast, but am no longer able to hand write text of any significant length. I suffer from writer's cramp far too early into a written page. How does this affect my 'personality' as evidenced by TJTI?
  
• The TJTI instructions to not specify the writing device, i.e., pencil versus pen. If pencil, one has a choice of a standard yellow graphite in wood instrument, or a more modern 'Pentel' type instrument. With the latter, one can better control the letter strokes. The same is true for pen, whether ball point, felt tip, nylon point, nylon flow, or Osmroid calligraphy tips with Pelican ink. How does this affect the test's outcome?
  
• What academic qualifications are required to score a TJTI test?
  
• So what if the TJTI provides 6 measures versus 4 for Meyers-Briggs. Where is the value added? What academic study confirms that more measures are better?
  
• And for either test, given the huge subjectivity and wide variance of the results based on matters as simple as how one feels on the day of the test, of what real significance is it to know ones score?
  
• What does it matter to the employer? For an HR department to take the TJTI seriously, it gives the impression that the firm is less interested in hiring the most highly qualified (skilled) person in favor of the mediocre or those who have low ratings with regards to skills and ability.
  
• References to Jung (of Meyers-Briggs fame) abound on the internet. But who is Thomas? What is/was his/her association with Jung?
  
• When contacted via email with a request to take the TJTI, why does the sender of the email use a 'throw away' email address? And why are parts of the email header forged? I have, with each email asking me to take the TJTI, asked the sender questions about the test. In each case I've received no response, and in one case the email bounced back with 'user unknown.'
  
• Why does the email not indicate HireGolden's involvement? The tone of the email suggests that the company's HR department is sending the email. However, on several of these emails, the return email address is forged to return to letters@route.monster.com.
  
• How can one be certain that a request to take TJTI is not an identity theft scam? In other words, how does one differentiate between an authentic request to take TJTI (should one actually be authentic) from a scam?

Boy Named Sue: BEHIND EVERY HR monkey these days seems to be some lawyer chimp dictating policy. It helps explain how all these hiring hoops get set up in the first place: overzealous legal beagles forget to trail - not lead - corporate decision making. Like janitors of the information age, these lawyers ought to stop setting policy and just go back to cleaning up after everyone else. Let HR hire the best; let legal figure out the rest. But no - they continue to rattle HR cages with scary lawsuit language, especially in articles like this. I have to wonder: aren't lawsuits why they keep the law suits around? Excerpts from an article by Timothy M. Holly in the July 2003 edition of HR Magazine (italics on paranoid language from me):

Improving employee selection can help keep you . . . out of court: "Some employers . . . may not fully understand the extent of potential liability involved with making hiring decisions. Now that the economy has slowed and jobs are no longer plentiful, workers may be more likely to question why they were not hired - and to look for legally actionable causes. The challenge for HR professionals is to create an employee selection system that is efficient and beneficial, but that also minimizes vulnerability to legal challenge. Where necessary, consider revising procedures to reduce your organization’s legal risk. While there is nothing to prevent workers from filing discrimination claims, there are mechanisms in the law for weeding out claims that simply have no chance of succeeding. Regardless of how formal or structured employee selection systems are, and despite a lack of invidious intent, employers may face liability if their practices adversely affect applicants in a legally protected class. Significantly, however, if a hiring system contains multiple hurdles (such as an initial pre-screening by phone, followed by an initial in-person interview and a second interview for finalists), then every stage must be tested for adverse impact. While instincts and intuition can be valuable aids in personnel selection, unguided gut feelings about a candidate’s fit are dangerous, legally speaking. The next step toward using subjective evaluation in a valid, legally defensible manner is to standardize subjective evaluations by uniformly following set procedures established in written policies. By considering and documenting all these elements, employers should be in a good position to defend the legality of their employment assessments. The work up front will pay off with lower litigation expenses in the future. The failure to consider such options could result in future liability that otherwise could be avoided. Where deficiencies are revealed, practices should be modified to lessen the employers’ susceptibility to legal liability. Although an audit of the nature described above can require expenditures of time and money, the exercise is worth the cost in terms of strengthening employers’ chances of prevailing early in future litigation, or by avoiding litigation altogether.

Good People, Bad Monkeys: EVEN THESE journalists can't seem to write their ways past the monkey's cage. From 8goodpeople.com, a site featuring unemployed writers who document the pitfalls of trying to get through (or around) HR departments and into their next jobs:

Dumbing Down Qualifications: "I went to a job interview recently . . . and found myself in the awkward position of trying to convince my interviewer that I was not overqualified for the position. . . . In my former job I was a news editor and managed eight reporters. What would the Modesty Editor have to say about that? I was a news editor - but it was no big deal. I worked with a group of reporters who actually didn’t need much oversight (lie!) and I just kind of helped out when I wasn’t watching CNN out of the corner of my eye. Or what about my almost 15 years of experience covering business and technology in Washington DC? The New Modest Me: Well, I've hung around the White House a bunch, but doesn’t everybody? They have these cool, thick paper towels in the bathroom with the Presidential seal on them that you can steal and nobody will arrest you. . . . The interviewer glanced at my resume, asked a few more perfunctory questions and politely bade me goodbye without asking for references."

Courtesy is Dead: "I have sent out hundreds of resumes in the last 18 months and I've gotten less than five letters informing me I didn’t make the cut. I'm always amused by these curt notices wishing me good luck in my career. Most of the time, I've totally forgotten what the job position was in the first place. But at least they knew my name long enough to write it on an envelope."

Silence Isn't Golden: "I've sent hundreds of letters out to prospective employers, most based on actual job ads. No matter how many times I read or hear that the odds are against ever getting a job that way, I feel compelled to do it. . . . I've sent cold-call letters, too. I've talked with headhunters. And I’ve talked with people about their publications and what they might need. The results of all these efforts are largely the same: Silence."

My Greatest Weakness: " . . . No matter how big or small the employment opportunity, interviewers always feel the need to ask the most odious question of all: What is your greatest weakness? . . . Since I have nothing to lose in this rotten economy, here's the honest truth: My greatest weakness is not being able to put up with idiots who ask about my greatest weakness. It takes a true HR automaton to even consider asking the question in the first place. It smacks of corporate lockstep, blue-flannel mindlessness and a deep-seated lack of any personal imagination. . . . It is an empty question that always elicits a lie, so why bother?"

Monkey Love: AND THE HITS just keep on coming. With no advertising - and little linking and media relations efforts - readership of Don't Feed the Monkeys keeps rising. Most hits come from Internet search results, and many lately are searches for information about TJTI, the Thomas-Jung Type Indicator handwriting test being used as a hiring hoop by certain human resources monkeys. But the best part is hearing from readers: lots of personal notes, all over the career spectrum, of HR horror stories. It seems, more than ever, people want to stop feeding the monkeys.

• January 2003: 600 page views
  
• February 2003: 800 page views
  
• March 2003: 750 page views
  
• April 2003: 1,100 page views
  
• May 2003: 1,200 page views
  
• June 2003: 1,500 page views

Most common search hits to DFTM: TJTI, Thomas Jung Type Indicator, Hire Golden, GBSM Denver, Chuck Wytiaz, employment screening technology, HR monkeys, Jesse King at Daniels Fund, overqualified rejection letter.

Internet domains of DFTM visitors: aol.com, monster.com, xs4all.nl, qwest.net, xiket.net, pathcom.com, Comcast.net, attbi.com, co.nz, adelphia.net, earthlink.net, bellsouth.net, nmc.edu, Microsoft.com.

Pages linking to DFTM (thank you!): StaffingManagement, Recruiting101, CircadianShift, Interbiznet.

Search engine highlight: Google searches on TJTI have been placing DFTM at #4, two slots behind #1 and #2 TJTI.com itself and four ahead of the handwriting test's biggest pusher, HireGolden. Hoo-wah.

Monkey Fight! THANKS TO InternalMemos.com for posting this rare look into how HR monkeys really make hiring decisions - and one of the bitchslapping notes that flow from rattled cages. Love the bit about making sure applicants are "treated the same throughout the hiring process." Does that include being treated with the same disrespect? File this one under Diversity vs. Cronyism. And note to self: Stuart Silk Architects, despite its multiple AIA awards and premium Seattle location, might not be the best environment for me to develop my marketing career.

Re: Marketing position - "Stuart, As long as you are going to let Aaron have final control over who I hire and undermine my authority and responsibility, I am going to exercise the same rights when you ask me to meet with the new guy and give my approval. Or we can leave each other alone on these matters. . . . In regards to your hiring the new guy, I vote no . . . First, anyone hired for any position this firm must qualify for the position. He is not qualified. You told me when I returned from my Nice trip that a Bachelor's degree in Marketing was a bona fide occupational requirement for this position. He does not have it. Therefore, he should not have been hired or you need to change your requirements and readvertise the position. Second, to prevent discrimination complaints and litigation and as a matter of sound personnel policy, all applicants must go through the same hiring process and be treated the same throughout the hiring process including qualifications, interview questions, being provided a copy of the job description, and starting salaries. He has not submitted a cover letter, resume, and writing and marketing samples, like the other candidates that I have talked to or reviewed their applications. . . . We are offering him, a white male with no experience in marketing or working at an architectural firm (as far as I know but then I have not seen his resume) $2.00 more an hour than Consuelo B., a non-white female with a Bachelor's degree in Marketing and more than 10 years of customer service experience including work as an office manager and marketing director for an architectural firm. What kind of a message do you think, Stuart, that we are sending to our employees? . . . Keith"

Happy Trails: AN INTERESTING June 24 Wall Street Journal article follows the trail of a phony résumé - the career profile of one Vinnie Boombotz, CPA, or "certified protection associate" - on its twists and turns through candidate filters at the HR departments of Merck and other Fortune 500 companies. The conclusion reached, after the résumé receives chiefly perfunctory automated responses, is that the HR filters work: bad candidates don't get through.

Well that's no surprise. We already know that HR departments shoot back perfunctory automated responses. The problem comes when those blind replies aim not just at bad candidates but, increasingly, to every candidate. The human resource word-search systems, bereft of humans in many departments, are just as adept at rejecting legit résumés. They rack up, to use authentication terms, far too many false negatives, placing perfectly good potential employees next to Vinnie Boombotz in those infamous "black hole" résumé piles.

HERE'S THE EXPERIMENT someone ought to try instead. Send those same Fortune 500 HR departments résumés with word-for-word duplicates of their job postings, embellished with a few legitimate company names (preferably direct competitors) and contact information. Let's test how the filters do with candidates they are looking for. Any takers? If WSJ won't do it, maybe DFTM will. In the meantime, more on Vinnie Boombotz here, here and here.

TJTI True or False: MORE TESTIMONY from a DFTM reader. This time, we present the other side of TJTI, believe it or not. At least someone on this side admits the test is used as a hoop for jobseekers, further distancing hiring managers from candidates who are too busy - or in this case, too smart - to muddle through a mundane task like TJTI. Edited for brevity and spell-checked for readability. Otherwise, the words are all his:

From: tjtiguy@hotmail.com: "I have a few things to say about HireGolden and TJTI, being that I work at HireGolden. 1) The company does exist. The address listed at 630 Freedom Center, Third Floor, King of Prussia, PA 19406, does exist. I have been there. 2) The company is not evil, and does not steal anybody's signatures, or do anything devious. 3) Their website is not hosted at Ursinus College. What HireGolden does do is screen employees for the companies who hire them. The first criteria they use are your qualifications, and other standard looking-at-your resume type things. Secondly, they use the TJTI test as a handwriting sample to supposedly determine your Myers-Briggs type. Whether or not this is accurate, I'll let you decide for yourself; I am in no way qualified to make a value judgment on this test. What the TJTI does do, rather effectively IMHO, is eliminate applicants who mass-apply for jobs. If they don't really care about the job, they tend not to fill out the TJTI. So, if you are asked to do a TJTI for a job position, it is my opinion that you should not fear doing it. If you have good qualifications, you are very likely to be forwarded to the company to which you are applying regardless of what they determine your Myers-Briggs type to be. I will be checking this email address to answer any questions people have, to the best of my knowledge. Peace, tjtiguy"