The Six Stages of Unemployment: No. 2: Rejection

I know this paints a grim picture, but one of the requirements for being out of work is being rejected. That's what you do now. You get people to say no to you, as often as possible, until, to torture an overburdened cliche', you get to yes.
Because unless it's a job offer that you decline, which is rather uncommon in today's market, as long as you stay out of work you're going to hear two things repeatedly.
The first is"no".
The second is "not yet".
Every CV sent out, every interview that does NOT end with a job offer is a rejection, if you look at it as a binary. It's yes or it's no.
Either you're hired or you're not.
And after a while, "buck up, little camper" wears a bit thin.
This is where it gets really tough. Every day can seem like another long dark night of the soul.
How do you weather it?
Again, let yourself feel it first. Work through those emotions as honestly and quickly as you can. Then get back to work, if you've stopped for that part of the process.
The work:
Ask yourself the necessary questions. Is my material up to snuff? Do my CV, cover letter, portfolio and references say what I want them to say about me as a professional?
But don't JUST look to yourself. consider external possibilities, or you run the risk of magnifying every aspect of your life into a series of failures. And down that path lies doom. Wallowing in despair has an indolent appeal to some, but the pay is lousy. So look to external, as well as internal, factors in your rejections. Some, possibly many, of the reasons you're not hired may have little or nothing to do with you.
In that sense, although it's a major part of your life, it's not necessarily personal.
They might have had someone else in mind for the position all along. The interviewer might have had a lousy day. The interviewer's own job might be at risk. In some (very few) cases, the interview process is just a way of building a pool of available applicants in anticipation of a later turnover, or possibly with an eye towards an internal restructuring.
The thing is that even if you ask, you can't always know.
And the way I see it, it's fine to ask. If the company in question has decided on someone else, trying to find out what factors went into the decision is valid. It has a couple risks. You might be seen as a sore loser, or desperate.
Sidebar: I've never understood why it's bad for someone in a desperate situation to seem desperate. It's not a poker game, it's your career. So long as you don't bring your emotional issues to the interview table and embarrass the interviewer, I see nothing wrong with being quite clear that you both want and need the job. Why else ould you be asking for it?
But by asking why you were rejected, you can learn not only about any missteps in your job search dance, but possibly learn a bit more about the career in which you seek to advance.
The second thing, "not yet", can be much harder to hear.
"We don't have anything for your exact talents at the moment" implies that the organization may have a need for you down the line. All well and good, but most people looking for work have imminent needs.
When you hear this, it's vital to plan a time frame to check back with them. I often make such inquiries when told this. If you are given a time frame is vague, or no specific time frame at all, pick an arbitrary time based on industry trends. In most cases, 4 - 6 weeks is a reasonable time to check back.  Then immediately add that follow-up to your datebook, planner or whatever organizational tool serves your process.
Next: Stage 3.

Disproportional curves

jumping though hoops indeed!

Some random thoughts on the frustrations of the job search process:
1. The less skilled the job, the longer the application. I recently filled out a 25 page application and a 100 item questionnaire for a retail job. I guess they want to be sure you're not going to steal some trinket, or that you're savvy enough to give the required answer to the questions.
Silly.
But we do it anyway.
The corollary of this is the paradox of a credit check as a condition of employment. If you're potentially working with sensitive material or with funds, this makes a measure of sense. But when people are out of work, their credit invariably takes a hit, since their revenue stream becomes inconsistent. So if your credit rating goes down because  you're out of work, and it adversely effects your potential to be hired, you can't get a job because you need one. Several states have done away with this unreasonable practice, and others are working on it.
2. Does it strike anyone else as odd that there's a disproportionate curve to having work? If you have work, it's usually easier to get more. As my friend Connie Moore noted, people don't necessarily want to hire you because you're the best for the job. Many people want to hire you to prevent someone else from hiring you. It's a strange kind of one-up-manship. It's not necessarily that they want your skills so much as they want someone else to not have your skills. If you doubt that, next time you're employed, tell your supervisor that you've had another offer. Odds are they'll match it.
Your skills haven't changed. Your value to the organization hasn't changed. The only difference in your skills is that someone else wants them.
3. Conversely, once you are not working, it's much harder to start again. Depending on your skill set and the marketplace, it's almost always easier to change jobs than it is to get a new one when you don't have one.
4. The phrase "not working" has pejorative connotations. It can be read as not functioning, or broken. When someone doesn't have a job, presuming the individual remains sufficiently motivated to keep their hand in in their chosen profession, their skills are just as valid. Let's lose the stigma associated with joblessness, shall we?
Proper terminology can be our friend. I recall the old Emo Phillips joke: "I lost my job. Well, I didn't actually lose it. I know where it is. But I go there and there's this other guy doing it!"
5 By the same token, it's crucial to respect potential employers, not just because they might be able to grant you a means to a livelihood, but because they're also human beings, and they have their own set of problems and crises that transcend the send CV - interview - thank you note - month later follow up that is now de rigeur in the job search dance.

"So tell me about yourself...."

What a boring question that is.
The answer's not boring, but the oft-repeated question is.
Well, okay.
Here's every job I've ever had, in chronological order, starting at age 11!
Gas station attendant
Bakery order packer
KFC cook
Road crew worker
Trucking crew assisant
Burger King cook
KFC cook again
Accounting assistant, Public School bus garage
Retail clerk, Sears Automotive
Foundry worker (shakeout, grinder)
Plaster caster
Dishwasher
Bartender
short order cook
prep cook
Theatre usher, janitor, box office and concession worker
Theatre manager
Receptionist
Factory line worker
Medical kit assembly
Retail commission sales
Assistant manager, video store
Personal care attendant
Papermaking assistant
Art exhibition setup
Teaching assistant, summer program
Adjunct faculty, technical college
Adjunct faculty, art college
Crew leader assistant, US Census
Adjunct faculty, art college
So what's the point?
Very few of us have direct paths, yet the job hunting process is geared towards only recognizing specific, directed skills.
"have you done this all your life?"
"Not yet..."
This is in part due to marketplace strictures. After all, if you have a choice between someone with 45 years of direct experience and someone with 45 years of transferable skills, it's likely that you'll hire the former.
But you could be doing yourself a disservice.
Someone with a wide range of experience knows how to adapt to different environments. That person also has skills and confidence in a wide range of areas. You're missing a bet by not hiring that person!
Of course, this is a call for an employer to hire me, but it's also a general call for a new vision on the part of employers.
Not giving someone a chance to use any of their skills wastes all those skills.

Photo from the Library of Congress Archive!