On a different approach to employment

... or why I never dealt with a fanned resume, but watched for a long time, then sent one, and they took me there.

The newsletter that came to the post office brought me another article from HeadHunter, which was supposedly designed to help applicants to write a resume more correctly.
One of many similar. To carry them numbers.
There, of course, it was told about what is good and what is bad to write in different sections of the resume, what words you can tell about yourself and what not, in general - how to present yourself from a perfectly assembled machine for a modest, but very important for company roles.

With this article I want to protest against the established practice of presenting oneself to applicants and to offer this “servility on guidelines” some reasonable alternative.
')
Article for applicants.

Why not?

Passing more than 4 years ago, the last interview, which was attended by all the applicants at once, I drew attention to the inner mood of those who were there.
Do you know what got me hooked?
Most of them looked ... pitiful. They were quite good specialists (probably), some would even have coped with the task better than me. But they looked pathetic, because they came at best to sell themselves , and at worst - to hope for a job and a salary almost as an alms .

Their questions were also relevant.
“And how much is your working day rationed? And will we have a “white“ salary? ”The first asked.
The second questioned - "And if they let me go on vacation in May for at least 3 days - I need to visit my parents."

There were still others.
They looked self-confident, cheerfully reported on their past successes, clearly trained their speech, perhaps even taught the answers in advance. Running ahead - did not take any of these. For some reason, unexpected questions forced them to ruffle, and failure immediately occurred in cheerful diction. Unexpected unpleasant nuances came out (one fairly respectable-looking guy did not even have citizenship).
The reason for their failure is not in a badly rehearsed diction, but in the fact that their ultimate goal was to get to this job. The ultimate - this means that their goal ended there.
For them, all their aspirations ended where, according to the hopes of the project leader, everything had only to begin.

During this interview, I suddenly felt acutely that this was impossible. These are all some wrong ways that are dishonest to one degree or another. These are attempts to deceive either the employer, or - more often - himself.

Work or work?

Here I will deviate a little from the topic in order to clarify an important question. The question of understanding archetypes.

What does the archetype “work” bear in us, as it is understood now?
This is when you come to a certain company at such and such hours on working days, perform a range of duties (still observe discipline, rules, etc.), go home in due time, and then they give you a salary for it - that is, those money for which everything was started.
What is it, in fact? Selling your time for money.

What is the problem here?
In the fact that from the archetype of "work" completely, to all hell, striving for a certain result. You will say that the result is a salary. But it is paid for the hours sold . Not for the achieved result.
In order to somehow bind an employee to the result achieved by him, various “motivation schemes” are invented, which consist in bonuses, fines, honor rolls, letters, bonuses (I am not good at this word), and so on.
But in general, in fact, in the head of the employee sits the principle of "served - not nakosyachil - paid."
I don’t want to breed Castanedovism here, but this is a slavish approach, in which a person does not recognize himself as the cause of his actions, and - as practice shows - in case of failure, he rarely understands what he is being punished for: he is just a screw, he is simply twisted wrong it is not he who invented it, he is a victim of circumstances, etc.
And he got a job not in order to achieve results, but in order to receive a “decent” and “prestigious” salary.

Another approach is called "labor."
Unlike "work", work is done for the sake of the result, as such - a satisfied customer, a beautiful design, a pleasingly pleasant interface, a useful and convenient device - any change in the world for the better, done by you personally.
Instead of a salary for a time that is irrevocably sold, you get a reward in gratitude for making the world a little kinder by your work. If you have not made him kinder, then for what then will he be grateful to you?

But with this position we are going to get a job - no, forget, we are going to look for how to make the world better.

Little buddha

- Hakimura! Who is the best body master in the country?
- I!

First, we, as novice gods, must decide how we can improve this world.

One can not just “constructively communicate with customers,” but cause this communication to bring joy, hope and relief to people who were looking for a solution to their problems (and this is so), and found him in purchasing this product, which this kind person opened to them person.

The other is able to think through working solutions that are convenient, understandable, easy to use, and thus help people save time, effort, make people's lives easier.

The third is able to develop not just “creative and conceptual design”, but has a sense of beauty and is able to embody it in his creations, which then cause surprise, amazement, delight.

The fourth is not just a programmer with an N-year experience, able to “implement complex multi-component applications”, but able to implement them so conveniently, resource-saving and flexible, so that end users later could not understand how they used to live without it at all?

Here is such an internal attitude - no more, no less.
You are not a wandering worker, looking for food and not being driven, but a specialist for improving the world , moreover, a good specialist.

The employer company is now not a temple where you need to come and pray, but a group of tired people who have been tortured with problems and who need your help. If they didn’t need it, they wouldn’t place their vacancy for help on all resources.
After all, really, think about it, if they need new people, it means they cannot cope on their own. So they somewhere "broke through the dam."

And you do not come to offer them to buy yourself.
You come to offer help. You can help. You are a specialist in improving the world, and you have noticed problems that you know how to solve.

Accordingly, the interview itself is changing.

Instead of trying to please a strange girl from HR, you came to understand what problems the company is experiencing and how you can help her. In order to understand this, you need to communicate with the leader of the working group to which you later connect.
No subjunctive mood. YOU. CONNECT TO. Without "maybe" and "if suddenly you decide ...".

Of course, HR can refer to his employment. But what is it? Who else will better explain what problems have arisen and where help is needed? Girl, invite him, or let's agree on when we can talk to him. And can you tell us more, I need to know what the essence of the problems that I will need to solve.

These are the main questions. Are you able to solve company problems? Do you want to improve the world here? Do those who work there want improvement (and, in general, problem solving)? Would you, as a specialist, be comfortable working with them?
If any of these questions cause you to doubt, protest, fear - clarify the doubts or away from there.
Do not waste time where you are obstructed.
Your time is priceless. After all, if you spend it in vain, the world may not be as beautiful as it could be.