Automatically translated.View original post

🛑 "Just try to talk, wouldn't it be damaged?"

🛑 "Just try to talk. Wouldn't it hurt?"

When a casual job interview can become a more expensive "life resource" burn than you think and unconsciously destroy your future prospects.

In the modern working world, one of the most frequently heard suggestions working / job-seeking people is

"Let's go to some interviews to get a good deal."

"At least the Czech retras themselves on the market."

"Go try the real field in case there's something better."

Suddenly, it seems like a smart strategy, because we suddenly want to know how much they are worth in the labor market, especially when a Headhunter calls or a big company comes in, even if the content is not straight, or we don't really want to change jobs, many people often respond with the idea that

"Try it, it's not damaged. If you don't like it, don't you?"

But in fact, going to a job interview when you don't want it may not be as trivial as we think, because the interview is not just an hour's worth of talking, but it's a process where the cost, time, and expectations of many parties are involved, and often the choice interview turns out to be a waste of time, a waste of energy, and a waste of long-term opportunities without our own knowledge.

This article would like to take a behind-the-scenes look at job interviews that many workers may not have thought about before. Why a real job interview may be more negative than good.

📉 "confidence trap" = when someone who is "not coveted" unknowingly becomes "unlikely to work with" people.

Imagine a candidate walking into an interview room with the idea of,

"I don't need this job. If he wants me, he has to give me a good deal."

This kind of Mindset can make us feel comfortable, unpressured, and confident, but what naturally follows is often an excess of confidence that the person may not even be aware of, for example,

* Prepare less because I think I don't need to try too hard

* Not seriously studying companies or job roles.

* Answering a passing question does not show real interest.

* Not raising in-depth questions about the job or team.

* The countenance and glint do not reflect enthusiasm.

Hiring Manager, or Recruiter, who has been interviewing countless people, often captures these signs almost immediately. Instead of feeling, "This is a Talent to take away," he may feel that

* Candidates don't really want to work here.

* Or have an attitude that may be difficult to work with the team.

The result often ends with "no interview." Even if you console yourself, "I don't want it." But on a subconscious level, repeated rejection affects more or less confidence. And if you accumulate this experience often, we may start to view the job interview negatively, so that future opportunities are affected.

âģ One interview cost more than I thought.

Many people think that the interview is just a 1-2 hour hiatus, but in fact, the cost is much higher.

1) The cost of the candidate himself.

In addition to travel time or online meeting time, including

* Leave or vacation

* Preparation time

* Stress before interview

* Emotional energy required

* And the focus dropped from the main job

The time spent on unintended opportunities may be the time to develop new skills or make your current work more prominent.

Sometimes, spending three or four hours with an interview that doesn't want a job can cause a major contribution to the main event to stumble.

2) Corporate cost

On the other hand, one interview is not simple, but means

* HR must be screened and coordinated.

* Hiring Manager must separate the time from the main task.

* Some executives have to postpone an important meeting to come and talk to you.

Many companies invest in multiple rounds of interviews and prepare fully competitive offers, but the candidates eventually refuse because they do not want to change jobs in the first place. This causes some candidates to be remembered as "not serious" and may affect their future prospects when one day they really want to work with that organization.

🔄 an impact wave that people don't usually see is a quiet disappearing opportunity.

Another effect that is rarely mentioned is the disappearing opportunities that we do not realize, which often do not occur suddenly, but gradually accumulate effects, such as

* You may slow down or respond to important work in your current job because you have to split your time to prepare an interview or travel to talk to another company.

* Missed the opportunity to own a new project because the boss saw that you might be moving, so choose to assign the job to someone who seems more dedicated.

* Or lose the trust of the leader and team because of abnormal leave of absence, important meetings are absent, or do not look as focused on the main event.

Imagine these situations.

* Some people are going to get a promotion or a major project assignment, but during the same time, they spend so many "selective" interviews that the work stumbles, or the boss feels that he doesn't intend to be with the team. In the end, the opportunity in the same organization slips away, even if the focus is full, they may grow without moving the work.

* Or in another case, a manager may be looking for someone to take care of the new team, but when he sees that one of his teammates is often taking a leave of absence for an interview, he may decide to choose someone else who looks more stable, although his abilities may not be very different.

* All of these are "silent costs" that we rarely think about because they are not immediate, but the results will be reflected in the next months or years.

Sometimes, the opportunity for growth is not in a new company, but in a current job where we have not yet reached our full potential, and dividing life force with unintended choices can cause us to unconsciously slow down.

⚖ïļ The 50% rule is to check the heart before answering the interview.

To be fair to all parties and maintain their professionalism, try to use simple thinking before accepting an interview.

"If the desire for a job is less than 50%, it is better to politely refuse."

The simple step is

* Request preliminary information, such as job characteristics, scope of duties, and salary range.

* Assess whether the job is in line with our career path?

* Ask yourself, would we want to move if we got this job?

If the answer is "not yet," professional rejection is better than a reluctant interview.

Saying "Thank you for contacting me. Now, the role may not match what you're looking for, but you're happy to talk again in the future" helps maintain a long-term relationship rather than a request interview.

âœĻ "professionalism" starts with clarity in intent.

Is a good job interview not just a proof of competence, but a proof of "intention" that we really want to build a future with that organization?

If our hearts don't come, an interview is like a play that knows the end. Sometimes, denying opportunities that aren't yet can give us a better place to prepare for future opportunities.

The next time you respond to an interview, ask yourself briefly, "Are we going because we see the future... or are we just going to check your own price?"

Because in the world of work, the most expensive resource is not money, but our own "life time and energy."

"Don't let it go away with what we don't really want, because in the end, the right opportunity always comes with a clear intention."

# Two stories a day

# InterviewTips

# Career Growth

# ProfessionalMindset

# HRInsight

2/5 Edited to

... Read moreāļˆāļēāļāļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļšāļāļēāļĢāļ“āđŒāļŠāđˆāļ§āļ™āļ•āļąāļ§ āļœāļĄāđ€āļ„āļĒāļ­āļĒāļđāđˆāđƒāļ™āļŠāđˆāļ§āļ‡āļ—āļĩāđˆāļĢāļąāļšāđ‚āļ—āļĢāļĻāļąāļžāļ—āđŒ Headhunter āļŦāļĢāļ·āļ­āļšāļĢāļīāļĐāļąāļ—āļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āđ† āļ•āļīāļ”āļ•āđˆāļ­āļĄāļēāļŦāļĨāļēāļĒāļ„āļĢāļąāđ‰āļ‡ āđ‚āļ”āļĒāđ„āļĄāđˆāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļ•āļąāđ‰āļ‡āđƒāļˆāļˆāļ°āđ€āļ›āļĨāļĩāđˆāļĒāļ™āļ‡āļēāļ™āļˆāļĢāļīāļ‡āđ† āđ€āļžāļĩāļĒāļ‡āđāļ„āđˆāļ„āļīāļ”āļ§āđˆāļēāđ„āļ›āļŠāļąāļĄāļ āļēāļĐāļ“āđŒāļ”āļđāđ€āļžāļ·āđˆāļ­āđ€āļŠāđ‡āļāļĢāļēāļ„āļēāļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļ­āļ‡āđƒāļ™āļ•āļĨāļēāļ”āđāļĢāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™āđ€āļ—āđˆāļēāļ™āļąāđ‰āļ™ āđāļ•āđˆāđ€āļĄāļ·āđˆāļ­āđ„āļ”āđ‰āļĨāļ­āļ‡āļŠāļąāļĄāļ āļēāļĐāļ“āđŒāļˆāļĢāļīāļ‡ āļāļĨāļąāļšāļĢāļđāđ‰āļŠāļķāļāļ§āđˆāļē āļŠāļīāđˆāļ‡āļ—āļĩāđˆāđ€āļŠāļĩāļĒāđ„āļ›āđ„āļĄāđˆāđƒāļŠāđˆāđāļ„āđˆāđ€āļ§āļĨāļēāļŠāļąāđ‰āļ™ āđ† āđƒāļ™āļ§āļąāļ™āļ™āļąāđ‰āļ™āđ€āļ—āđˆāļēāļ™āļąāđ‰āļ™ āđāļ•āđˆāđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļžāļĨāļąāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™āđāļĨāļ°āļŠāļĄāļēāļ˜āļīāļ—āļĩāđˆāļŠāđˆāļ‡āļœāļĨāļ•āđˆāļ­āļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļīāļ—āļ˜āļīāļ āļēāļžāđƒāļ™āļāļēāļĢāļ—āļģāļ‡āļēāļ™āļ›āļĢāļ°āļˆāļģāļ”āđ‰āļ§āļĒ āđƒāļ™āļšāļēāļ‡āļ„āļĢāļąāđ‰āļ‡ āļāļēāļĢāđ„āļ›āļŠāļąāļĄāļ āļēāļĐāļ“āđŒāđ‚āļ”āļĒāđ„āļĄāđˆāļĄāļĩāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļ•āļąāđ‰āļ‡āđƒāļˆāļˆāļĢāļīāļ‡āļŠāđˆāļ‡āļœāļĨāđƒāļŦāđ‰āļœāļĄāđ€āļ•āļĢāļĩāļĒāļĄāļ•āļąāļ§āļ™āđ‰āļ­āļĒāļĨāļ‡ āđ„āļĄāđˆāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļĻāļķāļāļĐāļēāļ‚āđ‰āļ­āļĄāļđāļĨāļšāļĢāļīāļĐāļąāļ—āļŦāļĢāļ·āļ­āļ§āļēāļ‡āđāļœāļ™āļāļēāļĢāļ•āļ­āļšāļ„āļģāļ–āļēāļĄāļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡āļĨāļ°āđ€āļ­āļĩāļĒāļ” āļ‹āļķāđˆāļ‡āļ—āļģāđƒāļŦāđ‰āļŦāļ§āđˆāļēāļ‡āļŠāļąāļĄāļ āļēāļĐāļ“āđŒāļ”āļđāļ‚āļēāļ”āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļāļĢāļ°āļ•āļ·āļ­āļĢāļ·āļ­āļĢāđ‰āļ™ āđāļĨāļ°āļ—āđ‰āļēāļĒāļ—āļĩāđˆāļŠāļļāļ”āđ„āļĄāđˆāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļĢāļąāļšāđ‚āļ­āļāļēāļŠ āļ™āļ­āļāļˆāļēāļāļ™āļĩāđ‰āļĒāļąāļ‡āđ„āļ”āđ‰āļĢāļąāļšāļœāļĨāļāļĢāļ°āļ—āļšāļ—āļēāļ‡āļˆāļīāļ•āđƒāļˆāļˆāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļ–āļđāļāļ›āļāļīāđ€āļŠāļ˜āļ‹āđ‰āļģāļ‹āđ‰āļ­āļ™ āļ—āļąāđ‰āļ‡āļ—āļĩāđˆāļ•āļ­āļ™āļ™āļąāđ‰āļ™āļœāļĄāđ€āļ­āļ‡āļāđ‡āđ„āļĄāđˆāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļ­āļĒāļēāļāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļ‡āļēāļ™āļ™āļąāđ‰āļ™āļˆāļĢāļīāļ‡āđ† āļ™āļ­āļāļˆāļēāļāļ™āļĩāđ‰ āļœāļĄāļĒāļąāļ‡āļŠāļąāļ‡āđ€āļāļ•āļ§āđˆāļē āļŦāļĨāļēāļĒāļ„āļĢāļąāđ‰āļ‡āļ—āļĩāđˆāļ•āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļĨāļēāļ‡āļēāļ™āđ€āļžāļ·āđˆāļ­āđ„āļ›āļŠāļąāļĄāļ āļēāļĐāļ“āđŒ āļĄāļĩāļœāļĨāļāļĢāļ°āļ—āļšāļ•āđˆāļ­āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļđāđ‰āļŠāļķāļāđ„āļ§āđ‰āļ§āļēāļ‡āđƒāļˆāļˆāļēāļāļŦāļąāļ§āļŦāļ™āđ‰āļēāļ‡āļēāļ™ āđāļĨāļ°āļ—āļģāđƒāļŦāđ‰āļžāļĨāļēāļ”āđ‚āļ­āļāļēāļŠāļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āđ† āļ—āļĩāđˆāļ„āļ§āļĢāļˆāļ°āđ„āļ”āđ‰āļĢāļąāļšāđƒāļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆāļ—āļģāļ‡āļēāļ™āđ€āļ”āļīāļĄ āđ€āļŠāđˆāļ™ āļāļēāļĢāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļĢāļąāļšāļĄāļ­āļšāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒāđ‚āļ›āļĢāđ€āļˆāđ‡āļāļ•āđŒāđƒāļŦāļāđˆ āļŦāļĢāļ·āļ­āļāļēāļĢāļžāļīāļˆāļēāļĢāļ“āļēāđ€āļĨāļ·āđˆāļ­āļ™āļ•āļģāđāļŦāļ™āđˆāļ‡ āļ—āļąāđ‰āļ‡āļ—āļĩāđˆāļœāļĄāļ­āļēāļˆāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļ–āđ€āļ•āļīāļšāđ‚āļ•āđ„āļ”āđ‰āļ”āļĩāļ–āđ‰āļēāļ—āļļāđˆāļĄāđ€āļ—āļāļąāļšāļ‡āļēāļ™āđ€āļ”āļīāļĄāļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡āđ€āļ•āđ‡āļĄāļ—āļĩāđˆ āļ§āļīāļ˜āļĩāļāļēāļĢāļˆāļąāļ”āļāļēāļĢāļ—āļĩāđˆāļœāļĄāđƒāļŠāđ‰āļ„āļ·āļ­ āļāļēāļĢāļ›āļĢāļ°āđ€āļĄāļīāļ™āđƒāļˆāļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļ­āļ‡āļ•āļēāļĄāļŦāļĨāļąāļāļ‡āđˆāļēāļĒ āđ† āļ—āļĩāđˆāđ€āļ™āđ‰āļ™āļ§āđˆāļē “āļ–āđ‰āļēāđƒāļˆāļ­āļĒāļēāļāļ—āļģāļ‡āļēāļ™āļ™āļąāđ‰āļ™āļ™āđ‰āļ­āļĒāļāļ§āđˆāļē 50% āļ„āļ§āļĢāļ›āļāļīāđ€āļŠāļ˜āļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡āļŠāļļāļ āļēāļžâ€ āļœāļĄāļˆāļ°āļ‚āļ­āļĢāļēāļĒāļĨāļ°āđ€āļ­āļĩāļĒāļ”āļ‡āļēāļ™āļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡āļŠāļąāļ”āđ€āļˆāļ™ āđ€āļŠāđˆāļ™ āļ‚āļ­āļšāđ€āļ‚āļ•āļŦāļ™āđ‰āļēāļ—āļĩāđˆāđāļĨāļ°āļŠāđˆāļ§āļ‡āđ€āļ‡āļīāļ™āđ€āļ”āļ·āļ­āļ™āļĄāļēāđ€āļžāļ·āđˆāļ­āļŠāđˆāļ§āļĒāļ•āļąāļ”āļŠāļīāļ™āđƒāļˆāļāđˆāļ­āļ™āļ•āļ­āļšāļĢāļąāļšāļ™āļąāļ”āļŠāļąāļĄāļ āļēāļĐāļ“āđŒ āđ€āļžāļĢāļēāļ°āļŠāļīāđˆāļ‡āļ™āļĩāđ‰āļŠāđˆāļ§āļĒāļĨāļ”āļāļēāļĢāđ€āļŠāļĩāļĒāđ€āļ§āļĨāļēāđāļĨāļ°āļĢāļąāļāļĐāļēāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļąāļĄāļžāļąāļ™āļ˜āđŒāļ­āļąāļ™āļ”āļĩāļāļąāļšāļšāļĢāļīāļĐāļąāļ—āđƒāļ™āļĢāļ°āļĒāļ°āļĒāļēāļ§āđ„āļ”āđ‰āļĄāļēāļāļāļ§āđˆāļē āļ—āđ‰āļēāļĒāļ—āļĩāđˆāļŠāļļāļ” āļāļēāļĢāļŠāļąāļĄāļ āļēāļĐāļ“āđŒāļ‡āļēāļ™āļ„āļ·āļ­āđ‚āļ­āļāļēāļŠāđāļŠāļ”āļ‡āļ­āļ­āļāļ–āļķāļ‡āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļ•āļąāđ‰āļ‡āđƒāļˆāđāļĨāļ°āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļĄāļ·āļ­āļ­āļēāļŠāļĩāļž āđ„āļĄāđˆāđƒāļŠāđˆāđāļ„āđˆāļāļēāļĢāļžāļīāļŠāļđāļˆāļ™āđŒāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļ– āļāļēāļĢāđ„āļ›āļŠāļąāļĄāļ āļēāļĐāļ“āđŒāļ”āđ‰āļ§āļĒāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļ•āļąāđ‰āļ‡āđƒāļˆāļ—āļĩāđˆāļŠāļąāļ”āđ€āļˆāļ™āđāļĨāļ°āđ€āļ•āđ‡āļĄāļ—āļĩāđˆāļˆāļ°āđ€āļžāļīāđˆāļĄāđ‚āļ­āļāļēāļŠāđƒāļ™āļāļēāļĢāļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļšāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļģāđ€āļĢāđ‡āļˆāđāļĨāļ°āđ„āļ”āđ‰āļĢāļąāļšāļ‚āđ‰āļ­āđ€āļŠāļ™āļ­āļ—āļĩāđˆāđ€āļŦāļĄāļēāļ°āļŠāļĄ āđāļĨāļ°āļ—āļĩāđˆāļŠāļģāļ„āļąāļāļ„āļ·āļ­ āđ„āļĄāđˆāđ€āļŠāļĩāļĒāđ€āļ§āļĨāļēāđāļĨāļ°āļžāļĨāļąāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™āđ„āļ›āļāļąāļšāļŠāļīāđˆāļ‡āļ—āļĩāđˆāđ€āļĢāļēāđ„āļĄāđˆāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļ•āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļāļēāļĢāļˆāļĢāļīāļ‡āđ†