{"id":29712,"date":"2009-09-21T09:39:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-21T08:39:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.corporate-eye.com\/blog\/?p=29712"},"modified":"2009-09-16T12:01:37","modified_gmt":"2009-09-16T11:01:37","slug":"about-applications","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.corporate-eye.com\/main\/about-applications\/","title":{"rendered":"Speaking from Experience! About Applications and . . ."},"content":{"rendered":"

something called \u201cTransformability.\u201d\u00a0 Two separate topics, but I\u2019ve had reason to think about both lately\u2014so here are a few comments:<\/p>\n

First.\u00a0 I had to fill out a job application online.\u00a0 Only sort of<\/em> a \u201cjob\u201d application, really, because I was responding to a project opening advertised on a fairly specialized niche board, and it was not a full-time employee position, but rather a part-time, virtual \u201copportunity.\u201d\u00a0 In short, the sort of thing that is usually handled by submitting a CV, samples, cover, etc.\u00a0 However the entity involved is an educational institution, and they wanted an application, so by golly, I jumped into the process.<\/p>\n

NOT a good experience!<\/p>\n

There were two problems.\u00a0 (A) The application was a complete misfit for the opportunity, asking questions that not only didn\u2019t apply, but really couldn\u2019t be answered by most people who would be responding.\u00a0 But (B) even if I had<\/em> been seeking the kind of position the application was designed for, the process of filling it out would have been very frustrating.\u00a0 It went on for MANY pages\/screens, with no indication of where I was in the process, or when (if ever) it might end.\u00a0 When I started the application I had no hint of what would be involved\u2014and once I began, the only connection to the application form was the Continue button.\u00a0 <\/em> The path\u00a0 of no choice just led deeper into the maze, and since the MANY questions in the application had no groupings and no discernible order, it wasn\u2019t even possible to make an educated guess about how far along I might be.<\/p>\n

The questions on each page were in a complete vacuum (i.e., no context, no way of referencing previous questions)\u2014and I began to notice that new questions were similar to ones I’d already encountered.\u00a0 I wondered how question 36 differed from the very similar 23.\u00a0 No way to compare.\u00a0 So was the similarity a psychological test of consistency?\u00a0 Why else ask twice in different ways?\u00a0 Was it nuanced, or just careless?!<\/p>\n

And there\u2019s always a slim chance the whole thing was intended to discourage applicants, or test their tolerance for frustration.\u00a0 But more likely, I’d guess that different stakeholders wanted to have <\/em>their questions included on the application in their very own words, so the form became kind of a collage, with similar questions that might be redundant–or might<\/em> merit completely different answers if the applicant had any context to go by.\u00a0 Who knows?<\/p>\n

Very likely, someone just took the paper application and made it clickable, so all the problems of the original became that much worse.\u00a0 As for my experience–with no way to stop and save the work I’d already put in, I slogged on to the end, but was pretty cranky by the time I put N\/A into the last blank.\u00a0 One thing I was sure of:\u00a0 the completed application did not provide very much that would be useful for evaluating me as a candidate.<\/p>\n

I see that my rant has used up all of today\u2019s post, so Transformability will have to be covered next time.\u00a0 Meanwhile, some suggested takeaways:<\/p>\n