I have an interesting but demanding job with a long commute, and the likelihood of vastly increased business travel requirements in the near future. I would like to improve my work-life balance by finding a slightly less demanding job with a much shorter commute and little travel. This will likely involve a pay cut, but DH and I have crunched the numbers and we can make this work. I am looking at the amount earned per hour of work including commuting time in determining an acceptable salary. I would also want to know about benefits and working conditions, because things like additional vacation or flexible hours would make up for a lot in terms of lower salary.
I have an interview next week for a really promising job, close to home. The job is in the public sector. (I have some public sector work experience so understand the differences from private sector.) I have all of their requested qualifications, so I may appear overqualified. They have not posted the salary but I am sure it will be a pay cut. My priority is having a variety of enjoyable and interesting tasks to do. Their job description is made up of things I’ve done before and enjoyed. I would rather do hands on work than be in management. I don’t care if I turn out to have more qualifications on paper than someone above me.
I tend to stay at the same job for several years. I don’t believe I will find this job boring. Even if I do, I expect to use the additional free time from less commuting to do a number of rewarding things in my personal life that I am unable to do now – providing a big incentive to stay.
The question for all of you: put yourself in the interviewer’s shoes. The candidate appears qualified to aspire to a higher level job, and probably makes more money right now than you’re able to offer. You raise your concerns, and receive the response above. Aside from being a bit long winded (sorry), what is your reaction to her explanation?
Is there anything in my explanation that should be left out, or phrased differently, to avoid setting off alarm bells in an interviewer’s mind? I keep reading articles about how work-life balance is becoming the “in thing”, but am wondering what happens in real life when an interview candidate admits to looking for it?
I have an interview next week for a really promising job, close to home. The job is in the public sector. (I have some public sector work experience so understand the differences from private sector.) I have all of their requested qualifications, so I may appear overqualified. They have not posted the salary but I am sure it will be a pay cut. My priority is having a variety of enjoyable and interesting tasks to do. Their job description is made up of things I’ve done before and enjoyed. I would rather do hands on work than be in management. I don’t care if I turn out to have more qualifications on paper than someone above me.
I tend to stay at the same job for several years. I don’t believe I will find this job boring. Even if I do, I expect to use the additional free time from less commuting to do a number of rewarding things in my personal life that I am unable to do now – providing a big incentive to stay.
The question for all of you: put yourself in the interviewer’s shoes. The candidate appears qualified to aspire to a higher level job, and probably makes more money right now than you’re able to offer. You raise your concerns, and receive the response above. Aside from being a bit long winded (sorry), what is your reaction to her explanation?
Is there anything in my explanation that should be left out, or phrased differently, to avoid setting off alarm bells in an interviewer’s mind? I keep reading articles about how work-life balance is becoming the “in thing”, but am wondering what happens in real life when an interview candidate admits to looking for it?