I have been trying to get back on a career path for several years now. Many, many interviews that I thought went very well, yet no job offers yet. A very different scenario than before '08, when I typically got an offer on every interview I went to.

Without core qualifications as an SME, she probably won't get hired. Think really hard about what she does better than anyone she knows, and develop a super-detailed resume focusing 5/8 on that. Her other generalist skills should be listed further down.

It's good to reinvent herself on paper, so long as she can back it up and deliver on her next job.

Good luck!!!!

at where you had demonstrated those skills and say "but, our organization is different." and proceed from there. There is NEVER an exact replication of your old job unless you have a job as, say, a plumber...and even then I would imagine it would be in what specific area you did your plumbing work. But you get my drift...

Describe how their needs can only be filled by you, and how you did it before and exactly how you will now do it for them. If the job is right, interviews will feel like a series of brainstorming sessions. Don't be afraid to take charge of the process. It works with the right people.

She has contacts who tell her about a job in their organization that she would be perfect at saying "you would fit in here." And they put in a word for her. We can't figure out why that doesn't work!

I wish her continued stamina and perserverance. It's a slog, but she'll get there.

eventually, her number will come up.

I applied for a job once and was told that I was wasting my time as they "always hired from within".

Fortunately for me, the two guys that had to make the decision each had an in-house candidate that the other hated, so they settled on me as a compromise.

But as of the forced crash of 2006, employers want someone who can immediately step into the role without any training. The job market is flooded with applicants, they can hold out for that "perfect person" now.

In other words, the employers have gotten lazy.

So many highly skilled people are out of work or underemployed that employers look for the alleged perfect fit. That means someone who is doing the same job somewhere else.
The one to get past that is IMO to know the hiring manager.

That is, they'll train you on proprietary software and company-specific policies/procedures, but these won't do you an ounce of good outside of that company. The reason is simple: if they train you in generally useful skills, then you become a more marketable property and can use it against them. This is also why they "hire from within;" they get a worker already familiar with the proprietary crap, so you're cheaper than hiring someone altogether new.

I'm not sure about the "we need Sally" mindset, though, because so many businesses are large enough that the person doing the hiring will have no idea who Sally was.

Or volunteering to use her most marketable skills so she can speak to what she is doing now. She can just skip the volunteer part and say she is working on a project right now.
Also, so many places hire more easily from within- she will have a bit of an inside track, and a paycheck if she takes any job suitable. I know it sucks- but soo many jobs are temp to permanent. Many companies do not want to make a commitment early on.
Also, if she is not editing her resume for each place of employment- after she researches them and the position- she needs to start now. A modular format with bullet points is best for that.
Also- she should look to the skills she needs to add to increase her marketability and tutor herself in them so she can claim a working knowledge of it.
Good luck to her!

used her skills and gained expertise, even winning a $1 million grant doing so) and she recommended that the organization hire an organizer who could get more people to sign on. They responded that if they had 3 places where that could be done they could afford to do so.

I told her she should volunteer to get those 3 more places, but she said that doesn't guarantee that she'll get the job. I said yes, that's a risk but nothing is certain in life so she might as well just go and do it.

and keep her name and presence out here. So many jobs get filled with contacts, whatever widens her network will help. There are no guarantees these days, most FT workers and made to feel very dispensable too. Rough market.

generally find out the job has been given to someone from outside, usually to someone who has no clue how to do the job but who reminds HR of an old flame or is an old flame or even just a buddy from school.

I don't know what to tell your daughter except to freelance while she looks outside the LA area. Some parts of the country are a little less brutal when it comes to hiring.

especially if she's not a fresh faced kid any more.

organization I discussed earlier. If they were telling the truth they might hire her for sure.

advice that works in one job market may not work in another one. especially if employers can afford to be picky and arbitrary.

she needs more inside information. She should build a network rapidly on linkedin, going through "you may know" and adding people quickly. set up informational meetings w/people she can find though linkedin in areas close to her interest. ask them what they think people are looking for, ask how to break in, ask about what makes job x different than job y, what are key skills that someone transferring in would have, etc. this will require that she pays for the coffee when she meets with people, although phone calls are also possible.

best of luck to her. sounds like she can do anything when she has the opportunity.

her to the actual person doing the hiring where possible. With that inside person she sits down and gets all of the relevant information prior to approaching the person doing the hiring. This would seem to be the best strategy but it, too, has failed.

look at smaller organizations - they may be more flexible and like someone with "transferable skills"

would you consider a job at our organization?" It's like being told you are over-qualified. When she says she will take the lower level of pay they often think she'll up and quit if something better comes along...

there's all kinds of "reasons."

it's kind of a personal thing exactly how, but this is more surmountable than firms being arbitrary and picky. these organizations just don't want to get burned it is a real fear that they will hire someone who will leave after 6 months and it causes them more trouble than not hiring anyone - they dont want to make their own lives miserable. so she needs to have a credible answer other than "will take lower pay" -- that part is obvious, but how does she credibly argue she will stay. why is this more consistent with her values and goals "I want to make a difference," "it is important to me that i am at a place where people really support each other," "i really enjoy smaller environments where i can use all my talents" etc. plus instead of "will take lower pay" say "i am a prudent person and i know what i need to earn; beyond that it is most important to me that i enjoy coming in to work and feel good about it when i come home." if she can somehow negate their fear, her high level of qualification becomes a big positive.

It is a two income family. And she is not looking to be a hotshot. Like you said, she can say the positive things about her own values. Strong point you make...

I think there are some missing pieces of the job market that people don't like to think about because they don't like to face that human beings really do prefer to hire "who they know" and fall back on a lot of discriminatory impressions unless they are hiring for a job with a LOT of very specific skill requirements.

The number one way to get a job is STILL through connections. This has ALWAYS been the way to get a job and it always will be. All the job developers in the world can't get you that. All the cover letters and resume rewrites in the world don't get you that. This is why all the job programs the government throws money at tends to throw good money after bad: they keep trying to rework the candidate when the problem is the candidate has low social capital. If they have a candidate that has been unemployed for a long time, that candidate lacks good "connections" and needs some direct bridges to work.

There was a way that college grads with "generalist" skills used to get around this problem. They would take long-term temp jobs and pray they would be hired after 9 months to a year. This method sucked in all kinds of ways. You would have to walk on eggshells that whole time. You wouldn't be earning benefits in a company you would later be working for during the period you were "trying out". It was hard to secure temp-to-hire jobs where you were solo in an office and not competing with other candidates. It really sucked if you weren't hired after a year and had to start all over and temp for another year someplace else. When you were hired, you still had to go through a probation period, often without full benefits and could be fired for no cause during that time if the company went through some financial shifts. But if everything went swimmingly, people *got to know you*, and they would go to bat for you as an *inside hire* at the end of the year. Once you got your foot in the door, you could apply for other jobs within that company.

The problem is after 2008 many temp firms consolidated and decided to focus on higher paying specialized skill contract work.. Even the temp firms that still cater to office work want to use people only accept people who have "current skills in the workplace", and they could afford to be that selective after the great recession. This choked off a major bridge between no-skill humanities grads and corporate careers.

Every time I see people scratching their heads over where the epidemic of long-term unemployed people - especially older unemployed people who couldn't make the jump back into the workplace after losing a job in 2008 - came from. It seems obvious to me if you presume that resume-and-cover-letter hiring really doesn't work at all for people who don't have high level technical skills. For them it has always been WHO YOU KNOW - and everyone knows that off the record. There is no way to fix that through "job workshops": only through direct hiring that gets people back in through doors, so people can "get to know them" again so they can restart their careers. That is the only way. Period.

The temp-to-hire piece is what is missing, but it sucked in the first place, so good riddance. Let's replace it with something better.

n/t

retired from a city job after many years. He is now in his late 70s and looks it and was hired back part time by City Hall to do what he used to do full time.

She is looking for opportunities/contacts in the local and county level now. She has experience in education issues due to her volunteer work and a 1$ million grant to enable other schools to start the program my grandson is in. I am hopeful for this venue now...

The other side of the government coin is it takes so darned long with taking exams and getting on lists, lol.

I'd guess so, but wanted to make sure. It is very easy to write things that sound good to you, but are off-putting to a hiring manager. I know because I've done it, and it took someone else to tell me, and after that it took me a little while more to agree I should fix my resume. On the other hand, "experts" on resumes and cover letters are not always right --- which doesn't make things easy.

stress in her resume. Then she rewrites and has them look it over for any other changes/suggestions.

I really don't know what the best way is to address job requirements you don't have. If you have a strong case on how you meet the intent of that requirement based on some other skills, and you truly believe in it, I think you go for it in the cover letter, and be short and to the point. If you don't have a strong case, I think you don't bring it up. This is just my 2 cents.

1. Interview by personnel dept person.
The resume needs to be tailored to exactly what they are looking for. The interviewer typically doesn't have a clue about the actual position. They are told this is what we want and will not take a chance on anyone with a question mark. Their own job is at risk or, at least, that is how they will think of it.

2. A department manager
At the end of the day this person need to believe you will make their job easier. Do that and you get the job.

Have here go to this link and see if she doesn't get a new approach to job hunting
http://www.jobhuntersbible.com/
Good Luck!

she very rarely wastes time sending a resume without the levels of iinvolvment that Bolles talks about. She almost never just "sends a resume."

You want a job in LA? It's not really about experience, education, skills despite what some HR people or recruiters might say. You need a friend or former coworker to recommend you. Your daughter could be the best candidate for the position but she needs an inside recommendation. Good luck!

are the ones she concentrates on.

Eventually, one of them said "it's just a matter of when your number comes up and it hasn't come up yet." That's what she thinks...

The interviewers are trained in BS and their decisions for their hires are political and not for the benefit of the company. This is especially true since the MBAs rose to the forefront (say around the 70's).

She tries for the interview with the person actually doing the hiring. But even that isn't working, and even with a company insider putting in a word for you.

She is at wits end...but still out there trying...

But she has to keep trying. Things are slowly improving. I wish her well!

I've wasted much time the last two years in bullshit interviews. One even asked me the glass half empty or half full question - I was like really? Is this the best you've got?

Im not interested in working for someone that behind the times or shallow.