Job interviewing for fun

Without question, job interviewing is stressful. It ranks second to a family death, divorce, relocating, major illness and losing employment. It qualifies as no laughing matter. When it comes to politics, however, the entire process can turn into a three-ring circus, replete with clowns riding jackasses and people running around scooping up elephant poop.

In the realm of serious interviewing and vetting, the process is no joke. Most screening interviewers take the task seriously, and many find the process as equally challenging, frustrating and stress producing as job candidates do.

Most of the major employers have ultra-strict interviewing procedures, while mid-size organizations tend to be somewhat less so. The smaller operations gravitate toward lousy-goosy—similar to what you see on the boob tube.

Different ground rules apply to distinctive positions and skill needs. Governmental entities usually have stricter guidelines than non-governmental organizations. Within the federal government, for example, at the upper levels, the hiring process takes into consideration the political factor.

The dichotomy that exists can best be illustrated by using the State Department. At the lowest rung—an entry-level clerical position–the application process can literally take your breath away.

Such a position requires tedious amounts of exhausting paperwork. If the job involves working in an overseas embassy, you may have an advanced degree, plus multiple language proficiencies under your belt. Naturally, you will have to undergo the full Monty treatment by both the FBI and NSA.

At the opposite end of that hiring spectrum, there is the Secretary of State position (currently held by John Kerry). For that, the qualifications are simple: You need to be a US citizen, be appointed by the President, and confirmed by the US Senate. The hard part is having the political connections. A certified elementary school teacher has to hold more credentials.

Even to hold the Presidency, the qualifications are minimal: You have to be 35 years of age, a US citizen and must have previously lived in the US for 14 years (though not necessarily consecutive). Oh, and you have to secure 270 Electoral College votes—that’s the heavy-lifting part. The scary part is that you could be dumb as dog droppings, and still meet the qualifications.

 We overly rely on the broadcast media to vet the candidates who haphazardly apply for the job. Ben Carson found that out when he informed Anderson Cooper he wasn’t applying for the job. Cooper reminded old Ben that he was indeed applying for a job. In a flash, Cooper’s quip torpedoed Ben’s lofty political aspirations.

We (the stakeholders in the upcoming election) should not rely on quick-witted show-host moderators to perform our due diligence for us. We bear some of that responsibility. I have a short list of questions that will never be asked. But just for fun, I’ll share a few.

For Trump: You have repeatedly used the phrase, “if they show me proper respect and are fair.” You’ve used the phrase countless times during your campaign. Why do you deserve respect and fairness when you show none toward others?

For Clinton: Has your husband shared with you why he signed the NAFTaA legislation the Republicans wrote? If so, would you share his reasoning or rationale for doing so?

For Trump: I’m taking bets that you’ll never release your tax returns, so I won’t ask. But what about a sealed, certified transcript of your courses at Wharton? I am betting you won’t release those either. Tell me whether I’m right or wrong? And why?

For Clinton: You’ve admitted that using a private server for State Department communications was a mistake. What have you learned from that mistake?

For Trump: You have repeatedly told voters you are very smart and “have a very good mind.” You’ve campaigned on that numerous times. Would you mind if an independent examiner tested and evaluated your IQ?

For Clinton: Many people, mostly voters, and all NRA members, are interested in your position on the Second Amendment. Clarify for voters the type of proactive modifications you might push for Congress to enact? (The question implies Congress would act, but don’t worry, they won’t.)

For Trump: While you were at Wharton, you majored in Finance, correct? Would you mind if I asked you a couple of standard eighth-grade mental math questions?

For Clinton: Would you seriously consider appointing Mr. Barack Obama to the Supreme Court? Include in your response, why or why not.

For Trump: You have accused your opponent of having had extramarital affairs. You’ve openly boasted about your extramarital affairs, but what tangible proof do you possess that warrants making such a slanderous and penurious accusation of your opponent? Remember, I’m asking for tangible proof—not supposition.

For Clinton: What is your plan for fixing the educational system? And, how would you go about selling that plan to a do-nothing Congress?

For Trump: You’ve stated that you’ve created many, many jobs. You’ve also declared bankruptcy many times. In all those jobs you created, how many those workers got stiffed when you declared bankruptcy?

For Clinton: The Clinton Foundation has come under attack for accepting foreign donations. How have those foreign donations been spent?

For Trump: Have you ever heard of Seven Arrows Investment and Development Corp? (Yes) Have you ever contracted with Seven Arrows to do business in Cuba on behalf of Trump Casinos and Hotels under the guise of humanitarian purposes? (Yes) Are you aware that you were in violation of a US trade embargo for this clandestine activity?

For Trump: It has come to light that you’re heavily in debt to a Saudi prince and lenders from China. How much in debt are you to these foreign entities, and how might that influence our nation’s relationships with those two countries? Also, are you in debt to any other foreign entities, such as Russia or Ukraine?

For Both: A lot of retirees are annoyed about having their Social Security taxed. What would your administration’s plan be to keep Social Security solvent? 

For Both: What is your stand on raising the minimum wage across the board?

For Both: What is your substantive plan to fund the federal government without raising taxes on the ever-dwindling middle class?

For Both: Automated technology and artificial intelligence will continue to replace everyday jobs. Even the coal-mining industry could be totally automated. What long-range strategy to deal with that issue?

For Both: Congress has shown no interest in simplifying revising the US tax code, nor will Congress consider reform campaign funding laws. What would be your strategy to get Congress to do anything?

For Both: According to the US Health Department, the US population is seriously overweight. Michelle Obama made an attempt to raise the bar, but her role-model efforts encountered fierce resistances. What could you a President possibly do where others have failed?

For Both: As an entity, the healthcare industry is running amuck—mostly due to high administrative costs and overcharging Medicare and Medicaid. Would you consider nationalizing the healthcare industry? If not, how would you as President correct it, assuming Congress will do absolutely nothing to help you?

For Both: The North Pole is melting. Sea levels are rising. Weather is becoming larger and more violent. What are your views on global warming?

For Both: Should the NRA be reclassified as a Political Action Committee rather than a nonprofit organization?

All in fun, folks. Then again, perhaps not. Don’t fret: I can assure readers most of these questions will not be asked by bobble-headed, broadcast media moderators. Both major parties might cry foul. On the other hand, given the political bombast, chicanery, and arrogance, what do stakeholders have to lose? 

oCopyrighted © 2016 by Robert James

Spotting Outdated Jobseekers

If you are one of those prone to reminiscing and start telling an employer about your best bygone years, you may be driving a nail in your job-prospecting coffin. Jobseekers need to evolve or risk perishing like analogue (outdated) technology.

Recently, a plethora of résumés arrived from jobseekers requesting reviews and suggestions on what could be done to improve their job-hunting prospects. Half projected a Rip Van Winkle image. Several of their job histories stretched back into the 1980s.

When I suggested that there was no need to delve into outdated history, several exploded with anger and dumbfounded bewilderment. The common response followed this line of rationale: “I was told employers want to know about all my experience,” or “If I leave anything out, isn’t that being deceptive?”

Whenever you are invited to a job interview, you have already met or exceeded the basic criteria for holding the position. Now it becomes a matter of second-tier elimination. This is where the jobseeker proceeds to eliminate him/herself.

Most jobseekers, however, never reach this stage in the selection process. They eliminated themselves during the first-tier screening process. Where did they shoot themselves in the foot? When they attempted to market outdated experience.

Depending upon the position and prerequisites, and amount of employment history to include depends greatly upon what’s relevant to the here and now. Beyond a certain point, the average employer becomes increasingly less interested.

For example, if the average employment opportunity requires five- or perhaps eight-years’ of experience and you attempt to cram 20 or 25 years down their throat—it won’t work.

Now we come to what most employers deem as their rule of thumb. Whenever an employer announces they are seeking to fill a position that requires a specific amount of experience, piling on additional years often proves counterproductive. Solution: Give them what they need and want to know.  

Once you overreach and send an employer too much information, it might as well serve as your obituary or epitaph. Naturally, there are always exceptions. These usually involve organizations that have paid committees to screen applicants.

The academic communities are idiosyncratic for exhaustive details, followed closely by the medical community. The government, however, prefers shorter résumés, but often include lengthy applications. Applications however, rarely reach most interviewers’ desk.

The rest of the real world is on a quick-time schedule. If the individuals reading the résumé are not being paid extra to scrutinize and digest the information you provide, they are not interested in wasting their time. For those markets, brevity and conciseness carry the day.

Copyrighted © 2015 by Robert James.

Classic Job Interviewing Faux Pas

This may appear obvious, but interviewers’ questions are as important as your ability to get into their heads. Most believe that having a clever retort will suffice.

The instant you receive an invitation to interview, you have already passed the prescreening process. Someone determined you either met or surpassed the qualifications. The follow-up interviewing process is designed to determine best fit.

For any opening, many will apply. Whatever the amount, only a handful will be invited to exchange repartee. From that handful, the elimination process amounts to letting candidates disqualify themselves. Last person standing usually receives the offer.

Employers design questions as they relate to the position. The probing inquires will be preplanned, and designed to penetrate your otherwise flimsy façade. The questions will range from basic, behavioral and stress, to a mixture of trap and judgment-probes.

The important aspect is being able to anticipate those questions. Candidates failing in this are often caught looking sideways. At the opposite end are those who over rehearsed. Of the two, being over rehearsed is better than being caught off balance.

The third faux pas involves unrehearsed questions generated from candidate’s prior response. Interviewer asks, “Why are you looking for a new position at this time?”

Placating gestures such as, “I need a new challenge,” or “I’ve taken my current position as far as it can go,” often generate a backup question. The fast-thinking interviewer now asks, “How long will you be able to serve in this position without becoming bored or under challenged?”

The perceptive interviewer awaits a candid response. If the candidate scrambles to proffer a vague or evasive reply, the interviewer has what he or she needs to know.

Candid responses—even if negative—curry more favor than pandering this-is-what-I-think you want to hear. This latter approach, however, is the one candidates tend to use.

It has often been stated that the truth sets you free. In most job interviews, it still does. The technique amounts to knowing how to present that reality. It comes down to anticipating the question and then being able to deliver a thoughtful, sincere response—sans an excuse.

Too often, jobseekers attempt to project an image of something other than who they really are. They worry that being genuine and sincere will somehow make them appear weak or flawed. Well guess what—aside from those who are legends in their own minds, everyone is flawed.

For those concerned with navigating interviewing sessions—concern yourself with getting the interview. Then, be prepared to address questions designed to uncover the real you. Employers are more willing to hire a flawed candidate over phonies and those divorced from reality.

That’s advice you can take to the bank.

Copyrighted © 2014 by Robert James

Employers Seventh Sense

Most humans come with five built-in apps (smell, touch, taste, sight and hearing). The sixth sense deals with one’s sense of balance. There is, however, one more sense we tend to ignore—the seventh sense.

This sense goes by various nomenclatures, such as one’s gut feeling or instinct, perception, hunch, psyche, mother wit, and judgment. Whatever term you favor, this primal instinct will impact the executive-level interviewing decisions.

We do things on multiple levels, some of which may not be in our best interest. These account for many get themselves into interviewing trouble. Some candidates proceed down an illogical path, relying heavily on lying, dumb luck or happenstance.

In the real business world, serious employers do not rely on the dumb-luck method. Those that do, get themselves in difficulty. They encounter high management turnover, a disgruntled workforce, low morale and/or low productivity, and other oh-shit situations.

To avoid these pejoratives, most employers take extraor­dinary precautions. The prescreening process eliminates those with obvious defects. Even those who may be qualified receive the fast shuffle due to quirky behaviors or unintentional faux pas.

Without belaboring the list of interviewing abnormalities, employers continue to rely on their seventh sense in making final hiring decisions—especially for upper management. They refer to this as judgment calls. The hiring team relies on their collective instincts in reaching a decision.

One way to explain the process is to approach the situation from the employer’s perspective. Let us arbitrarily begin with an executive position paying $250,000 or thereabouts. As someone on the final decision making team, you have to reach closure. The process has come down to three finalists.

All the candidates are qualified in terms of experience, education and likeability. All passed background checks. Once each individual’s tangible skillsets have been assessed and evaluated, what will you call upon to make your final decision? Which candidate will receive your acquiescence?

Inevitably, your decision comes down to the individual who was the most candid, straight­forward and sincere. How does one assess those traits? Will you listen to your instincts? Keep in mind, lest you risk having your own judgment drawn into question, wasting a quarter mill could come with repercussions.

Those who conduct interviews for serious positions do not like being played. The slightest hint an executive candidate might be attempting to pull a fast one, usually backfires.

Classic example: You casually ask each candidate, “Oh, by the way, who prepared your résumé?”

Your seventh sense kicks in when two of the candidates lean forward, look you squarely in the eye and says, “I did. Why do you ask?”

Copyrighted © 2014 by Robert James.

Swinging at Interviews

When you think about interviewing for employment, try thinking of it as a sport—baseball comes to mind. You have amateur leagues, of which there are many participants, the minors and at the top end of the sport, the majors.

At the bottom of this hierarchy—the amateur level—anyone can participate. To qualify, you merely have to show up, make a halfway decent presentation, and pass a minimal background check. Because most hourly positions do not pay well, talent scouts do not expect much.

From the interviewer’s perspective, the biggest challenge amounts to finding a halfway decent candidate who will accept low wages. From a jobseeker’s perspective, the biggest challenge is getting noticed.

At the major league end, only a handful get invited to play. To qualify, you usually have to know the right people, and possess the right credentials or pedigree. The salaries are heady, to be sure. Image, however, tends to curry more influence than interviewing dexterity.

Ironically, at these upper echelons, interviewing dexterity only has to be a few rugs above those seeking hourly employment. One’s referrals, social standing and references often become the deciding factors—not one’s interviewing prowess.

Where interviewing skillsets become important is when you apply for salaried positions between these two extremes. These positions usually require a degree, a clean background, some related experience or talent, and the ability to navigate the interviewing process.

For most jobseekers, this is where the action is. Salaries will range from $50,000 to a quarter million. Add a few bennies and performance incentives, and competition becomes downright fierce. The non-serious quickly strike out. 

Not everyone has the stomach to compete. If one is modestly secure in one’s position, and there exists no incentive to change, most potential candidates simply sit on the sidelines. When they do decide to enter the job market, they do so reluctantly and with trepidation.

The transition from sitting in the bleachers to stepping up to the home plate tends to be sobering. You are expected to hit a homerun each time you step to the plate. To exacerbate the situation, the pitcher throwing you fastballs and curves may have 20 years playing the game.

Tragically, many have to strike out a half-dozen times before they realize they are playing outside their league. For those with poor and deficient résumés, they will never be called to the plate, let alone have an opportunity to strike out.

Statistically speaking, the magic number is five. If you consecutively strike out that many times at bat, you may consider yourself interviewing deficient. Once you bomb that many job interviews, you qualify for the 80% who show up for tryouts but fail.

To reverse this statistic requires developing a passion to perform well. Merely having the desire will not suffice. The bleachers are filled with ballplayer wannabees. As New York cabbies are prone to quip to questions like, “How do I get to Yankee Stadium?” If you cannot guess the punch line, you never will. 

Red-Flag Résumés

A half dozen times each year, various jobseekers will request a functional résumé—as opposed to the more conventional, reverse chronological method. The rationales behind those requests usually appear valid. Two common statements are, “My work history is a mess,” and “I have really diverse experience.” These pronouncements are followed with, “Therefore, I need a functional résumé.”

An engineer approached me to do a functional résumé. It soon became apparent why he had chosen this option. Twenty-five years earlier, fresh out of college, he landed a primo, to-die-for research position as a subcontractor with the federal government. He worked alongside well-known, top-notch scientists on cutting-edge technology. Within the span of five years, his income skyrocketed like the space project he worked on.

Then a new administration came into office; funding for his project became shelved. A month later, he was jobless. His new employer could not match his former income. To exacerbate matters, his highly specialized experience had become obsolete.

As a result, the engineer settled for a lesser position, less pay and far less prestige. Within five years, his employer parceled the work offshore. In a hasty decision, he grabbed the first job that surfaced.

He vowed to keep looking, but like so many whimsical promises, he never got about to it. Ten years slipped by, and once again, he found himself on the job market. He took stopgap employment in an effort to make ends meet.

The pinnacle of his engineering career had slipped past him years earlier. Now, showing signs of age, mentally depressed and utterly discouraged, he sought me out to create a functional résumé. He yearned to return to those former days of glory.

The benefits of using a functional format continue to be touted. The biggest benefit is that a functional format opens the door to wild creativity. No longer restrained to date chronology, you have the freedom to gloss over those sticky-tricky obstacles—perhaps sidestep them entirely. Free at last—free at last!

But wait! There is a catch, and it is a biggie. Every jobseeker with something serious to camouflage uses a functional format—long unemployment being one. In the beginning, many employers were hoodwinked by engaging job adventure stories. Over time, most employers wised up to this nonlinear hocus-pocus and razzle-dazzle technique.

Lo, these many the years, I have discovered that the best résumé to wear to an interview is reality. If you show up wearing con artist attire—whether those clothes fit you or not—savvy employers will perceive you as one.

Copyrighted © 2013 by Robert James

Fat Chance Interviewing

Even for marginal jobseekers, a dynamic résumé feng shui works wonders. Once the interview is scheduled, the remaining con­cerns boil down to interviewing dexterity and physical appearance. Both are important, however one sometimes trumps the other.

Like it or not, one’s physical condition influences hiring deci­sions. All things being equal—which they rarely are—the candidate who looks healthier has an edge. Projecting that image can amount to biting into hard cheese.

While it is indiscrete for employers to make blatant inquiry as to an applicant’s eat­ing rituals, a visual head-to-toe inventory during a face-to-face satisfies their curiosity. The dirty secret is that in a tight market, the leaner, sharper applicant has the presumptive edge.

Once you reach your age of majority, you have an inalienable right to dine on what­ever cuisine you desire. Health insurance providers take exception, however. Employers who routinely hire unhealthy workers are often penalized for that indiscretion.  

For some, eating is a religious experience we practice daily. Not until we show up to deliver that job-offer performance will we have to concern ourselves with our eating habits. By then, that last-minute event could come down to an oh-shit moment.

True believers ascribe to the doctrine that if you eat real food, you live longer, healthier and smarter than those who do not. Nonbelievers dismiss that as a bunch of hooey, but they may be functioning in denial. Those who evangelize extreme positions often waste their breath as if they were trying to persuade agnostics.

Food and eating extremists abound. At the far left, there are those into macrobiotics, and on the far right, there are the diehard fast-food addicts. Everyone else falls some­where in the middle. Odd as this may seem, no one falls smack-dab in the center. You tilt either to the left or to the right. (For example, you won’t find incongruities such as a food purist sipping a can of soda pop or a vegan eating raw meat.)

Presently, the majority of American jobseekers are overwhelmingly leaning to the right in their eating habits (or beliefs). If you doubt that, check the national obesity statis­tics. You will note that two-thirds favor processed foods and canned beverages over real food—a dubious distinction to be sure.

So, how do eating habits end up in the prescreening interview? As noted in several of my previous articles, whatever you eat and drink in private you wear to your interview. How indigestive and sobering is that?

If you are planning a fat-chance interview anytime in your upcoming future, you may want to take your eating beliefs into consideration. If you don’t, the next employer will! And somewhere between meals and inspiration you’ll find employment salvation.

Copyrighted © 2013 by Robert James

What Is Your Interviewing Edge?

Most people have seen Clint Eastwood’s The Outlaw Josie Wails. Throughout the movie, the old Indian comments to himself, ‘A man has to have an edge.” In job interviewing, that pretty much sums it up. The candidate with an edge has an advantage.

Half dozen edges come to mind. These range from physical appearance to mental alertness. There is not too much one can do at the last minute to garner a small edge, and thus nose out the competition. Most interviewing edges are acquired well before you arrive.

For example, reviewing potential interviewing questions and honing effective responses is not something you develop the night before an interview. The same applies to mental alertness, a healthy appearance, a clean credit record, references, researching the company, and compiling a portfolio just to name a few.

Candidates who show up short in these broad categories encounter a premature interview termination. There is no point in prolonging the event when it becomes apparent the applicant will not be hired. Like trying to hold dry sand, the opportunity slips through your fingers.

When you make it to the initial interview, in most cases you have been prescreened and prequalified. Only a few issues remain. The two highest factors are whether you are a good fit for the position and if the interviewer likes you. The final stage usually comes down to how you handle stress. At this stage, having an edge makes the difference.

Once the field of candidates narrows, the interviewing process can be tricky. A skilled interviewer will devise carefully constructed leading and open-ended questions in an effort to uncover the real you. Open-ended and leading questions provide you with great latitude. This is also referred to as providing you with enough rope. Shooting-from-the-hip, John Wayne style usually does not work.

In the beginning, most skilled interviewers are cordial, warm and upbeat. The initial three or four softball questions are designed to relax you, or perhaps create the illusion that the interviewer wants to be your friend. Nothing could be further from reality. This is merely a time-tested technique, and the interviewer is on a mission.

Most interviews began when the interviewer says, “Tell me a little bit about yourself.” From here, an interviewer will broadly inquire about your work experience, education, perhaps home life, or even hobbies and outside interests. 

Again, these are merely soften-you-up questions, all of which you are expected to easily address. Drop or fumble a softball question, and the interview is essentially over. Think of it like this: You are a running back, and you've just been handed the football. Rather than run with it, you trip over your shoelace and tackle yourself. Don't expect to be kept in the game.

Keep in mind that many of the initial questions could be gleaned from your résumé. Thus, you should consider these as softball questions. The interviewer is merely attempting to keep you in your comfort zone. The questions you need to concern yourself with are the ones not addressed in your résumé.

Be prepared to think fast, once the interviewer shifts gears. Knowing how to respond to probing and stress-producing questions can provide you with an interviewing edge. The following are a few examples:

How did you feel when you had to terminate someone? (Or, how did you feel when you were terminated?)

If you enjoyed working for XYZ Company, why did you leave?

What did you dislike most about your boss?

What is the biggest risk you have taken with your current (or previous) employer?

What do you dislike most about working in management (or supervision)?

Why do you want to work here? (Better do your homework on this one.)

What is the worst thing you have ever done in your life?

What makes you feel you are the best candidate for this position?

I see that you worked at ABC for only two years. What was the problem?

Tell me about your team-player skills. (This is a trick-and-trap question when you are seeking an executive-level position.) 

How do you handle and resolve work-related problems?

Who can we contact to verify your accomplishments?

Several of the foregoing are potential sleepers. Take for example the question that asked, What did you dislike most about your boss? A placating response usually doesn’t work. If you loved your boss, or your boss loved you, be prepared for a follow-up gotcha question, such as, If you and your boss got along so well, why did you leave? (or why are you leaving?)

Naturally, if your boss is (or was) a nut case, it is probably not a good idea to grouse about it during a job interview. Most interviewers would like you to believe that total honesty is both therapeutic and self-liberating catharses. An experienced job seeker knows otherwise. 

Another gotcha is the team-player inquiry. Most job candidates will fall over backward trying to suck-up and placate the interviewer. Executive-level positions, however, often require someone who can make difficult decisions apart from the "team players."

A final area to consider when you need an interviewing edge, is paying attention to what you eat. What you stuff in your mouth directly affects how you handle stress, your general alertness and brainpower. Job interviewing alone causes super amounts of stress.

The fast food (or Western) diet is not conducive to maintaining low stress. You may want to consider switching to high fiber foods, reducing your caloric intake and avoiding all white sugar and corn syrup products. Both your body and soul will thank you for that.

Illegal Job Interviewing Questions

Even though the following questions are blatantly illegal for employers to ask, many do without fear or hesitation. Employers assume if you have nothing to hide, you won’t mind responding. Most job candidates provide such information—though the individual is not required to do so.

Questions pertaining to your age, race, gender, national origin, debt status, sexual orientation, religion and marital status are illegal. Employers know this. Once an individual shows up for an interview, they can make a snap judgment on four of those items.

Practically every application you fill out will have questions that address your gender, marital status, criminal background, and the dates you graduated from high school and/or college. From those dates, they can calculate your age. 

If you attended a religious-based school, there is a high chance you are of that religion. If you show up wearing a wedding band, they usually assume your marital status. 

As for your place of origin, that is a zero issue. Most employers are now required to validate your legal US citizenship or residency. Usually, you have to provide two documents, such as your driver’s license and Social Security card. Bingo!

They have access to everything they want to know—including an in-depth credit report, court documents, arrest records, driving record, where you have lived, and bank accounts. Your driver’s license number contains more information on you than you can possibly image.

Once you fill out the medical coverage form, any insurance company or licensed private investigator can find out things you have long forgotten. The bottom line is this: The primary reason employers press an applicant for illegal information upfront is to save them time, effort and expense. 

Here’s the rub: Should you lie? No! The lie is a certifiable reason for rejection. There are no ifs, ands, or buts. Do not let the fear of rejection trump your desire to get the position.

As a job seeker, keep in mind that no one is 100% squeaky clean. There is dirty laundry in everyone’s clothes bag. Some of that laundry is more important than others. The most critical issues involve:

1.      Criminal records, which are often publicly available,

2.      Bad credit and recent bankruptcies,

3.      Serious medical conditions,

4.      Prior-employment issues, such as multiple job terminations or too many jobs in too short a time span

5.      Where you reside, and

6.      General appearances—especially if you are sporting visible tattoos, face art, and/or far-out wardrobe and/or a multicolored hair-do.

Here are a few steps to take to minimize your exposure. 

a.      You can usually have old criminal records expunged if not too serious.

b.      You can challenge and usually correct errors in your credit report (except recent bankruptcy and college loans). Request out-of-date data be dropped. If employment data appears, does it conflict with your résumé?

c.      You can minimize the appearance of job-hopping by eliminating non-relevant and short-gap employment from résumé and applications. (Only do this when it does not conflict with information in your credit report.) 

d.      If you live in a questionable neighborhood, you can take up temporary residency with a family member or relative living in a better location. 

e.      You and you alone control your appearance. Make of it what you will.

f.       Finally, you are what you eat. Ninety percent of all health issues (except those resulting from accidents, birth or bodily injuries) are the result of what you stick in your mouth. If you have a serious health condition, consult a progressive, holistic medical expert who has a record of fixing the condition—as opposed to merely treating the condition.

Five questions to ask job applicants over 40

Most of these articles provide job seekers with job-hunting strategies, techniques and suggestions. To shift gears, here are some revealing questions for job recruiters to ask. These represent cut-to-the-chase questions.

	Rationale
What is the most recent thing you’ve learned?	Bingo! Mentally active individuals learn thing regularly, and are eager to share it. Those who don’t will have to ponder the question and make up something jiffy-quick. If in doubt as to the veracity of the response, press the issue by probing for the who, what, when, where and why. Most prevaricators will trip over their shoelaces.
How do you deal with (or confront) co-worker problems? or Give me a work-related problem, and tell me how you resolved it?	Recruiters tend to overly rely upon their gut instincts when seeking out that “good fit” applicants. In reality, they need to be able to identify those who can deal with daily adversities. This backup question throws most job applicants for a loop. First off, the candidate’s survival instincts shift into panic mode. Most candidates will want to avoid dwelling on the negative. Look for the candidate who can take a negative and turn it into a positive outcome.
What are your three most favorite foods? Include what you drink most often. or What do you do to take care of your health?	This may appear off-the-wall, but it screams volumes. Bad eating habits are a national disgrace. Moreover, this question provides insight into potential liabilities. If the job candidate begins reciting a list of high-energy, low carbs and brain foods, the recruiter has nothing to worry about. If the employer requires a physical, you will find out everything you need to know.
Outside of work, what are your three most favorite activities?	Most people avoid responding with watch TV, play cards or sleep, even though those are among the most popular activities. Most candidates will respond by saying they are involved with their family or children, or play golf. They may have two responses rehearsed. It is that third activity where they begin coming up short. A savvy recruiter should look for high-risk activities. Naturally, if the position requires someone who is a risk taker, go for it. If not, proceed cautiously. High-risk takers can pose an increased level of liability.
What makes you good at what you do?	Most job applicants should be able to respond to this question without hesitation. Those who hesitate are not serious candidates. While there is no right answer to this question, there are countless weak responses. Look for responses that include some elements of enthusiasm, dedication, high energy or creativity.

            There is nothing magical about job interviewing. Every candidate walking through the door stands on equal footing. Most job seekers over 40 complain about appearing overqualified—a euphemism for being too old. In many cases, that is indeed true. On the flip side, however, a mature candidate can bring a wealth of valuable experience.