To apply for a job when I don't have all the essential requirements?

[liptolinford]

Is it just going to be a waste of time for me? There's 8 essential criteria, 5 of which I have. The other three are dodgy though

1. Educated to degree level in a related field - it's a job for Communications Officer and I have a degree in Sociology which I could maybe make fit at a push...maybe?

2. Experience of working in a communications/media/PR field - I currently supervise a switchboard. Does that count?

3. Experience of the media, NHS and political landscape, including media handling and crisis management - no experience whatsoever. If I get a media enquiry where I work now, I pass it onto the media team. I have no experience of working with the NHS or political landscape.

I'd have to spend quite a while on the application and I'd rather not waste my time if they're going to dismiss it straight away. I'm 50/ 50 whether I should apply or not.

WWYD?!

'Media handling and crisis management' means, for instance, what you do when a major fundraising deficit is uncovered. Or there's a scandal. Or your royal patron dies in a car crash in Paris (I had to deal with all of those). And the hacks are ringing you round the clock and you need to brief recalcitrant colleagues and draft a coherent statement. Obviously this organisation might not encounter all of those but that is the kind of thing.

Op also - the application requiring 500 words should not necessarily make it easier for you. Using fewer words to sat what needs to be said is a skill, and a very relevant one to this role.

Have you thought about doing a relevant course if this is something you'd like to do? Or could you offer to do one day a week in a similar role in your current organisation on work experience?

I used to work in HR and at a recruitment seminar the trainer made a point about why (generally speaking) men rise faster through the ranks than women. Women won't apply for a job unless they have all the skills. Men will apply anyway and blag their way through the interview.

So, a man will look at the role and say "I haven't got the skills but I know I could do the job" and apply anyway. A woman will go "I haven't got the skills so I can't apply".

Very general as I say - but an interesting view.

You have looked at the criteria and thought about how you can bend your own experience to it - so why not give it a whirl?

Honestly I wouldn't waste your time. If they're asking for those criteria, that's what they'll shortlist against and I'm afraid you don't have the requisite knowledge skills and experience they seem to be looking for. If you ring them to ask if you should apply given the gaps you describe you'll probably be told that it's worth a shot. But they won't mean it. Sorry.

Meant to add - you have the majority of the requirements, so not a huge stretch to work on the remaining three.

They will not expect a perfect fit so then their call about what actually is essential and what a nice to have.

If the OP has the time to do the application then why not? The worst that will happen is that she won't get any further, which is no worse than her current position. I'm sure that those who know the field are correct in their analysis about the essentials skills being definitely essential, but on the off-chance they might not be, then why not?

My analysis is based on running the comms for several major charities. Before I switched to becoming one of the journalists who hassle the press offices

I think you are wasting your time. When I have recruited staff I have put in a list of essential and desirable experience - I make the distinction because to do the job people need to have the essential skills and/or experience. Any application that does not have all the essential criteria goes in the bin. I don't have time to bother with people who can't read a job advert properly - and if appointed would need their hand held until they get the necessaries. Recruiting is an expensive activity so can't afford to waste time with applicants whoo don't meet the spec. Sorry if this sounds blunt but it is the reality of the real world.

You're wasting your time. This sounds like a press officer/comms officer job, ie, dealing with the media, writing press releases, fielding enquiries from journalists, etc. You're a receptionist by the sound of it. It's not even remotely the same thing. Supervising a switchboard is not the same as "communications".

It's a very tough job comms. It's a giveaway that you think operating a switchboard equates to working in PR/media.
You need to be a skilled writer and a smarmer (think politician!).
You also need to understand the various media outlets and the nuances between those for e.g. lets say, communication to patients, communication to The Guardian.
It sounds like they are looking for someone to probably handle the content on their webpage and/or social media pages also.

Apply if you want, but you wouldn't be experienced enough to do the job.

I wouldn't. I recently applied for a job where I met all the essential AND desirable criteria, and had three years employment with a leading organisation in the field and I didn't even get an interview.

I don't think there is any harm in applying!

I am on a course at the moment looking at getting more women into senior leadership in education. One of the key things that keeps coming up is the idea that women are likely to wait until they think they have mastered what they are doing and have all the essential skills for the next level whereas men are more likely to apply even if they don't have the essential requirements.

If you have an hour or so to craft the application, go for it!

There is harm in applying. I've seen companies put names into a database of 'previously rejected' etc., so they run the name through that if an application comes in again from same name, even if the candidate might have met the criteria for the new position applied for.

No harm in applying but, I suspect, 8 essential criteria means they already know who they want to apply; they've already got someone lined.

I'm sure I have read before that men apply for jobs if they have over 50/60% of the essential specifications, but women generally don't unless they have over 80%.

I think if you would like the job, you think you can do it and you have time to do the application, then go for it!

The only sure thing is that if you don't apply you have zero chance of getting it!

Is that true about the Public Sector, that you have to meet all the essential criteria? I'm looking at a job description for a University for which I have 7 out of the 8 essential criteria in spades. The one I don't have is experience of Educational IT systems though I've loads of experience in a wide range of other types of systems.
If I'm automatically going to be ruled out then I don't know if It's worth an hour of my life.

I've seen companies put names into a database of 'previously rejected' etc., so they run the name through that if an application comes in again from same name, even if the candidate might have met the criteria for the new position applied for.

Seriously?! That's a scary prospect.

ephemeralfairy Scary but true! How do I know? Because I was the one who had to check the database and eliminate on that basis! (temp role in HR dept.)

I didn't have all of the essential list in the last 2 jobs I got (only missing one in each case, and had most from the desirable list too, and some extra ones)

Isn't this one of the reasons men progress faster at work? Men being more likely to give it a bash and women will wait until they are the perfect candidate.

OP apply for the job. If nothing else, it's experience in applications and potentially interviews. If you don't try, you'll never know.

Might give it a bash then, it sounds really interesting.

I read that men apply for jobs when they have 60% of the requirement while women feel they need 100%. Go for it. Communicate your skills to them, that's what the job is about! Good luck OP

Well, I've applied. No harm done if I get nowhere bar a bit of lost time. It's "only" paying 21k which I reckon is pretty low for the experience they're expecting.

It's interesting reading about men vs. women applying for jobs according to essential criteria.

I bet if I worked in recruitment, I'd be all "don't people understand the word 'essential'"?! But I don't so meh!

Time for !

A couple of years ago I watched a documentary by Hilary Devey (dragons den) about women in management.

Surveys showed that when faced with a list of 10 requirements, a man would apply if he could do the top three, whilst a woman would get down to item 7 - find one she couldn't do - and rule herself out.

There is a message in there - (assuming OP, you are female) - go for it.

Remember, nothing is really that essential for most jobs (apart from obvious ones like law, medicine, pilots), these are just dreamt up to fill the space on the forms that HR like to compile - and to empire build for the department head.

After all, if they mostly said "reasonably enthusiastic, steady, sensible person - full training will be given" it might puncture the bubble.

Let them decide to rule you out - don't lie of course.

Well good luck in that case OP!