Why did BofA hiring managers even call me for a phone interview in the first place just to tell me they prefer job-stable applicants who've worked at least a year, when they've already seen my short job durations on my resume?
When I was called for a phone interview by Bank of America in Salina, KS in 2004 when I was 19, they asked me for the reasons why I left my prior jobs after just short stints at them, then said they prefer applicants who prefer job stability; who've worked anywhere for at least a year. So why did they call in the first place?
This was after they found my resume I had at the time, at Monster.com. (Monster.com was a LinkedIn predecessor, like how Yahoo was a Google predecessor.)
It showed that I was at Sykes for just a little over a couple months, that I was at Foot Locker while temping through Manpower for one day, and then McDonald's for almost only a month and a half. When they asked "McDonald's - close to about a month and a half... what happened there?" (In a somewhat exasperated tone.) I left because "I felt pressured;" in reality I felt bored so the boredom pressured me to leave. I didn't have an MP3 player to play music on to help me pass the monotonous work hours better.
When I thought of the tone she used when she asked "what happened there?," I thought of a car starting to emit steam from the hood and needing to pull over, so if I would've told her THAT, knowing I have nothing more to lose at that point, how would she have responded?
But back to the original question - if they prefer only applicants who've worked anywhere for at least a year or more, and my resume didn't show that, why did they still call me for a phone interview in the first place?
No comments:
Post a Comment