• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official Pit Job Search/Employment Thread

I know we have a bunch of lawyers on here. Has anyone done the switch from civil defense to plaintiff's work? I was contacted a head hunter regarding a position in my same practice area. The firm is interested in meeting with and wants to move quickly (in general not just with me as a candidate). I'm interested if anyone has any experiences with the switch. So far, it appears compensation would be much better at the new place.
 
Have people here had experience with being recruited by a headhunter for a position they are pretty sure they are unqualified for? What was your strategy?

This has happened twice for me recently and both are positions that fit in line with my work, though usually require or prefer 3-5 years more experience than I have.
 
Have people here had experience with being recruited by a headhunter for a position they are pretty sure they are unqualified for? What was your strategy?

This has happened twice for me recently and both are positions that fit in line with my work, though usually require or prefer 3-5 years more experience than I have.

First, how did you determine you are unqualified for the position? How well do your skills fit the position? Somebody else looked at your resume, paper or something, looked at a position and determined that you might be a fit candidate. So the answer to the why you determined you were pretty sure you were unqualified is key to the rest of the discussion.

If its years experience, see is my take below. If it is other issues, then that needs to be discussed with the headhunter. You need to discuss whatever it is that made you reach your conclusion that you are not qualified vs what the headhunter saw or found out about you makes you a possible fit for the position proposed. Headhunters generally get paid to put someone in the position, so they really don't want to send a candidate who is unqualified. Puts the headhunter in a bad light with the potential employer, less likely to be listened to about next candidate, position etc.

Is the position is just "preferring" 3-5 more years experience, or is it stated as required? If just preferred, I would just go for it, unless that number is like double or more your actual experience. That is, if you have one year exp, and they want 4-6, that might be a big issue. If you have say 15 and they are asking for 17-20, its really a no never mind.

If it really is a requirement, discuss with the headhunter and make sure they understand where you are in terms of experience versus the position requirements. Find out if there is some substitute for experience.



Most companies look at jobs in three or four big classes: Newbies, who will need significant mentoring and aren't ready to do a lot on their own; journeymen, who can do most jobs without handholding, and know enough to know when they are in over their head; and senior/expert, who can do the job, figure out the weirder issues in the field and have knowledge and skills to be mentoring more junior people. Some places separate those with no experience from those with a little experience (0 vs 1+ years).
 
Very helpful. I'm in a unique area with my field where given how new the technology is, and the role I've had leading the strategy for it for a Fortune 200 company, I am one of maybe 10 people with the experience I have, which has led to headhunters approaching me often. The issue is companies are often looking for senior executives to lead the charge on in this space, often requiring a wealth of experience.

So in short, the primary role they are searching for I am very qualified for, more than just about any other candidate. However the additional parts of the jobs like leading a large team, having experience with budgetary responsibilities, x years of experience, etc. are the potential hiccups.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like this is a situation in which you really need to have a serious discussion with the HH. Is the company looking for someone who does exist, or are they looking for a "unicorn?" What is more important to the prospective employer - high level technical chops with less management/executive experience or more management/executive experience and lesser technical capability?

Also, how willing is the prospective employer to provide some training/schooling support for you to get up to speed in budgeting etc.? If they are willing to $upport training in your weak areas, that might be a good fit. At some level, however, there is no substitute for true been there, done that experience.
 
Last edited:
Well I killed it in my interview and then in my follow up email with writing samples I had a typo--missed a second quotation mark on something. I reviewed it like 5x before sending. Not a huge deal, but my old newspaper editor said no matter what you can never perfectly edit your own work. Hoping they miss it, but you can find some grammar nazis who will say nope. Just hoping to get that call back for round 2, which sounded that way on the call today.
 
Well I killed it in my interview and then in my follow up email with writing samples I had a typo--missed a second quotation mark on something. I reviewed it like 5x before sending. Not a huge deal, but my old newspaper editor said no matter what you can never perfectly edit your own work. Hoping they miss it, but you can find some grammar nazis who will say nope. Just hoping to get that call back for round 2, which sounded that way on the call today.
You're probably fine unless it is a copy editing position. Matt has seen some real doozies on copy editor's resumes though and presumably someone is hiring them. Though not him...
 
It's a comms job but not copy editor. I mean I'm generally an excellent editor for other people and everything of mine that goes out the door is similarly edited by my boss, so it's not a huge deal. Just the type of thing I'll think about until I hear from them again.
 
Sounds like this is a situation in which you really need to have a serious discussion with the HH. Is the company looking for someone who does exist, or are they looking for a "unicorn?" What is more important to the prospective employer - high level technical chops with less management/executive experience or more management/executive experience and lesser technical capability?

Also, how willing is the prospective employer to provide some training/schooling support for you to get up to speed in budgeting etc.? If they are willing to $upport training in your weak areas, that might be a good fit. At some level, however, there is no substitute for true been there, done that experience.
All fair points. But in the most recent situation, it's a startup with around $10M in funding. 10 person team, looking to ramp up to 30, and I'd be joining as the #3 guy in the company (Head of Biz Dev). Not much opportunity at all for training.

The budgetary and management examples were for a different position in a more traditional, large company role. Definitely possible there.

Have an interview with their advisory board member on Tuesday.
 
It's a done deal, Pit - I accepted the position in Denver. They came in with a very strong offer and after meeting with the team last week it was a no brainer for me. My wife's top client, located in Colorado Springs, is waiting for her to return from Maternity leave and her company inked a big client IN Denver while she's been out, so she'll be able to work closely with her customers from Denver.

I will be starting in mid-May. Time to say goodbye to the low country and hello to the front range!
 
Congrats, LCD. I've only heard great things about living in Denver.

Sounds like a great opportunity for you guys!

Thanks - things really lined up nicely for us on this one. I'm stoked and can't wait to get out there. We got good vibez when we were there last September scouting out the city. If the wife wasn't pregnant then, we might have just stayed at that point.
 
Back
Top