Calling when ad says "no calls please"

Great post ... and really, that's the only point I was getting at.

Yet we have resident psychology experts here who automatically equate someone putting "no calls" in an ad as not having people skills. I'd get fired up, but it's DyePack, so it's really not worth the time.

Now if an editor says ... no calls, no e-mails ... well, that's just stupid. You have to be able to communicate somehow.

 

Agree completely; that now falls into the "no hiring/people skills" camp.

 

Except Hejira said he called someone without the "no calls" caveat and got a harsh response.

Are you saying he should have e-mailed? Maybe he did and got no response.

Again, part of being an editor is dealing with job applicants. If the same person is calling you every day, then yeah, it's time to be cold with them.

If someone is calling for the first time, it takes just a few seconds to say, "We're still deciding."

 

Dye, that's fine too. But there were times that I dealt with people who would call twice a week, wondering about the progress of the hire. It gets a little old. Trust me, you'll know if you're being considered, and probably fairly quickly.

As far as the cold response HH was speaking of, that goes back to my original point about calls versus e-mails. How do you know someone didn't call five minutes after the ME told the SE he was slashing sports' travel budget for the year? Perhaps he wasn't in the greatest of moods, etc. Yeah, I know you're supposed to put that all aside, but with e-mail, you allow someone to answer at his or her convenience instead of perhaps catching him at a really bad time.

 

No one is saying don't e-mail. I think ogre's original point, and I'm guessing, was he had called someone who wrote "don't call" in the ad. Maybe he didn't realize it until after he called. Maybe he knew and just forgot.

But shredding someone's packet because of an innocuous phone call is absurd. If someone is calling twice a week, then it may be time to shred that packet. But not after one call.

 

Well, shredding a packet would be a touch reactionary, yes.

 

Yeah, I don't think it's called for after one call. It's meant for somebody who doesn't get the idea the first time. Or those who try to hold onto it through a six-page message-board thread.

 

Interesting that the rhetoric has grown more open in the last few postings. I would have to agree that a persistent caller that's not getting anywhere with the hiriing mananger is wasting his and the managers time. But, save for Tom Petty from earlier, most decent hiring managers/editors at least extend some kind of information from the first call. Such as "We're still deciding." This is a golden opportuntiy for someone to seperate themselves from the other candidates. Like many of the earlier postings, editors are going to think they are busy...it's up to the candidate to get a clear understanding what it will take to make the final cut by asking appropriate questions. What's in it for the manager/editor to hire you.

In case "Tom Petty" from earlier answers the phone, you can simply ask him if Hitler taught his youth journalism class.

 

No. I would understand. They call it being a grown-up.

 

Just tell the people they're not being considered for the job the second time they call instead of letting them wait around with false hopes.

Here's another one: Most of you on here seem pretty dead-set about not having applicants call when the ad says no to call, but the common knowledge is to NEVER send the salary you want for a job with your application even when the ad says include desired salary.

Similar? Totally different?

 

absolutely....salary requirements: negotiable.

 

bullshit. the only people who call are the folks whose resumes are in the very tall pile.

why don't you give me your direct line at work and i'll call you 12 times a day for three weeks and ask you, 'what are you thinking?' and see if that doesn't piss you off after the end of the first day.