78bc3 said:
AggieBarstool said:
As a manager who makes hiring decisions, I can say that a cover letter can absolutely set you apart as a candidate (both good and bad) and should not be overlooked.
For the love of god, tailor the letter to the company, position, and your value-add to the team. I don't care that your a "<insert some boring adjective here> looking to <insert some generic garbage goal here>."
Would it be fair to say that managers are more focused on the needs of their Team, than what the job seeker is looking for..
Are you more concerned about the pile of work that is causing your folks to double up to keep up; than your concern for someone looking for a paycheck.
I don't want to speak for him, but I'll post my response. (It went off the rails but I still think there's some useful stuff in there for job applicants and early career folks)
I see a cover letter as potentially doing three things:
1. Convey enthusiasm for the position. But this is something I dedicate time to in the interviews. It's easy to fake when you've got time to craft, much harder when I hit the same thing from 2-3 oblique angles during a live interview. So the cover letter is redundant and less effective than the other method.
2. Be a writing sample. But how you write with infinite time and huge consequences doesn't tell me all that much about how you'll write on the job. Besides, even with many ESL colleagues I've never had to deal with someone who COULDN'T write well. Motivation has occasionally been a question.
3. Are they qualified. This is redundant though. The resume does that, and the interview checks for BS in the resume.
If someone has a generic objective about wanting a job, that's a negative to me (you applied, I already know you want a job, why are you wasting space). If someone is really specific about what they want to get out of the job, that's a benefit. If the person is really specific about where the job will take them, we're back to a red flag again.
For example: I asked a candidate what he wanted to get out of the role. He spent a lot of time talking about exposure to executives and how it would make him more qualified for some different jobs. I recommended we reject him because he wanted the job as a stepping stone.
He was offered anyway, proceeded to slowplay us, and eventually took a different job where he underperformed and left after a few months. He wants to advance, but he never tries hard enough to get good at what he's doing so he's a 30-year old junior analyst.
Those people never take work off my plate because I have to check everything in exquisite detail. I'd rather just do it myself.
My best employee ever wasn't quick on his feet in conversation and didn't have the best resume, but he worked hard, took feedback to heart, was careful and smart, and if he said he would do something he did it no matter what it took.
My best hire ever didn't have relevant experience coming in, but he knew his old job inside and out. When i asked what he wanted out of the job, he talked about specific skills and knowledge, not where it might take him next. He applied himself and successfully pivoted his career.
My worst hire was great on paper and super smart, but for complicated reasons I hired him in spite of red flags about work ethic and motivation.