The Purpose of 'The Process' in Your Job Search
Whether you've jumped in with both feet or have one toe in the water, the purpose of the job application and interview process is one of education and exploration.
May 15, 2018 at 10:00 AM
5 minute read
When assessing whether to apply for a job, legal professionals tend to view their submission of interest as a commitment they are locked into until the bitter end. This mentality affects how a candidate feels and behaves—and influences the opportunities s/he chooses to pursue … or not. I work with scores of lawyers who find themselves in the anxiety red zone because either they don't know exactly what they want when they look for greener pastures or they believe that going through an interview process means foregoing an escape hatch. Consequently, fear sets in and they don't pursue opportunities they should. Or, they go all the way to the end of a process only to reject an offer presented.
Sound familiar? These results are a detriment to everyone involved. So a paradigm shift in thinking about “The Process” is required.
Whether you've jumped in with both feet or have one toe in the water, the purpose of the job application and interview process is one of education and exploration. Designed to provide you with an increasing amount of information so that you can make the most informed decisions about your career. You don't have to know exactly what you want. You don't have to know exactly what you need. And you don't have to know whether you'd accept a job offer at the beginning of an application process. You do not need to commit to anything except entering a process in good faith. And if you do that, the rest is pretty straightforward.
When job hunting, it's prudent to cast a fairly wide net with regard to the types of opportunities to consider. Pursuing those that pique your interest … and leaving the nonstarters behind. The goal is to learn as much about an opportunity as you can. And in that process, you will learn more about yourself. Inevitably, there will be surprises as you continue to explore different employers, roles, cultures, leadership and geographies. And as the process advances, you will have more insight and precision with which to choose the role that's right for you—and move the needle closer to career satisfaction.
And if you reach a point in an interview process where you know the role isn't The One, it's OK to opt out and move on. I repeat: it's OKk to opt out. In fact, it's the professionally responsible thing to do. But this can be much easier said than done. Fearing the conflict and its consequences, legal professionals are unsure how to handle such situations. If you find yourself at this point, below are a couple of examples of how to effectively pull the plug:
“Jane, I wanted to reach out directly to let you know that I am withdrawing my name from consideration for the Director, Legal position. I sincerely appreciate the time and effort of your entire team. But as I've learned more about the opportunity, I don't think there is a fit. The company is at a stage that is a bit too early for what I am seeking and I'd like to be part of a larger legal department with a more defined infrastructure. This is a wonderful opportunity and I wish you the best of luck with your search. I look forward to our paths crossing again. Best, Alex”
“Robert, thank you for taking the time to meet with me this week. I appreciated learning more about the firm/company as well as the position. After careful consideration, I've decided not to remain in the process. I'm seeking a bit more responsibility than this role will offer—and combined with the compensation and long commute; I don't think it's the right career move at this time. All the best, Alice”
|Withdrawal Message to a Recruiter:
Note: An unprofessional withdrawal or improper job rejection for a job represented by a recruiter can quickly get you blackballed in the recruiting world. So communicating the right message to this constituency is just as important as it is directly to an employer. Here's a good example:
“Julie, I had a good interview with Joe at Company XYZ. He was a nice guy and I think the interview went well. But after learning more about the role, I don't think it's right for me. Through the process, I've determined that I would like to stick to B to C companies. I wanted to let you know now before everyone put more time and effort into my candidacy. Thank you for thinking of me and I appreciate the opportunity to interview with your client. I'd like to reach out directly to Joe if you think that would be appropriate. If anyone comes to mind for this role that could work, I'll send them your way. In the interim, don't hesitate to reach out if there are other Solutus opportunities that you think might be a fit. Best Regards, Laura”
The pressure legal professionals place on themselves to be “perfect” in a job search can be downright paralyzing. From the resume to the network building to the interviews to saying no …and to committing to a path before they know where it leads. It's an unrealistic bar that serves as a set-up for a suboptimal experience—and results. So as you begin your next career journey … breathe. Cut yourself some slack. And heed the advice above to leverage The Process for the gift that it is meant to be.
Julie Brush is the founder and author of The Lawyer Whisperer (www.thelawyerwhisperer.com), a career advice column for legal professionals, also found on LinkedIn. She is co-founder of Solutus Legal Search, a legal search/consulting boutique firm, serving as a strategic adviser to lawyers, law firms and corporations.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPatent Trolls Come Under Increasing Fire in Federal Courts
Co-Founder and Startup Divorce: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
'Get Laid Off With Me' on TikTok: What Employers Must Know About This New Trend
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250