When you don't meet the first "Essential" criteria

[SnowsFalling]

So, had a shit day at work last week.
Submitted a CV on Friday for a job that i don't meet the 1 essential criteria for. But I do have the underlying academic requirements.
And I do meet all the weird and wonderful desirable skills and knowledge. And they are bizarre desirable skills.

The recruiter wants a phone call this evening. How honest should I be with them? Is a call for every recruiter recieved CV standard? And what sort of conversation is it likely to be??

About to do some reading on unknown topic - although, tbf, it's probably out of the recruiters knowledge area!

Yes, I'm panicking. DH is away with the kids, and I've not applied for a job through a recruiter in 20 years!! All advice gratefully recieved!

Is it an external recruiter or someone within the company HR team? It’s pretty standard to have a call either way, they don’t want to put anyone forward they don’t know, they need to find out a bit more about you, check cultural fit etc first.

I can only base a reply on my own experience. We would never accept a candidate who did not meet all the essential criteria - they wouldn't be there if they were optional. But we do often have external recruiters totally wasting our time sending us candidates who don't meet the essential criteria! From their perpective, every appointment is money for them, so they will basically send through anyone and everyone that they think might suit, whether or not they meet the criteria. Making money from appointments is what they do, so for them it isn't a waste of time.

So I guess it depends on the actual employers attitude to whether they really meant "essential" when they said it.

its called essential for a reason!

I think it depends how close you are. For example, it might say PhD is essential, but in reality, if you were near to completion and ticked all the boxes, we would consider it.

I didn't meet one of the "essential" criteria for my current job. I was up front about it in my application and explained something similar I'd done which I argued showed I'd be able to pick up the thing they wanted experience in. Then I went to the interview prepared to talk about it and asked some questions to make sure we were both confident I understood what the "essential" thing was and wasn't blowing smoke up their arses saying I could learn on the job.

Caveats: my role is generally very difficult to recruit for, it's a niche public sector role that has a better paid private sector equivalent. I was also overqualified in some other aspects of the job. And the thing I didn't have wasn't a regulatory requirement i.e. I wasn't applying for a doctor's job without a medical degree! But it can't hurt to try - the absolute worst that can happen is they say thanks but no thanks.

Incidentally studies overwhelmingly show than men will put their hat in the ring for things they are nowhere near qualified for, it's generally only women who worry about ticking every box.

If it's for example, to be fluent in German and you only have GCSEs in German, it's unlikely to work.

Yep. My thoughts exactly. But then job sites are full of advice about not worrying if you don't meet all the criteria, and to apply anyway....

So, to avoid wasting anyone's time, but upfront about why I'm interested, but that I don't have direct knowledge of what they are asking.

It's niche. Think
"We want someone who has worked on engines for space rockets, and desirable someone who has been to mars, manufactured a Mars bar, and can eat 3 Mars bars in a minuite"
I can do the last 3, and have worked on engines, just not for space travel.

It's external recruitment at this stage.

It depends what the essential criteria is. If it's "must have X qualification" (obviously not something unquestionably essential like a medical degree for a job as a doctor or a law degree for a lawyer post, but something more generic like any non-specific degree for a corporate role) but you have equivalent on the job experience, then I'd be clear I didn't have the qualification but would stress the relevant real world learning. I've been successful in gaining jobs with that approach.

Based on your example, I think you could probably demonstrate that you come close to meeting the essential criteria. I didn't meet one of criteria for my job (a masters degree in a relevant subject) but nobody cared because I had enough professional experience to translate across. Plus they didn't have many good applicants!

I think if you frame it as subject matter expertise and transferable skills, you might be okay.

Well, recruiter admitted noone has everything on their unicorn wishlist!
CV being put forward. Let's see what the people who wrote it think!

Totally depends what it is and whether you could wing it/learn it easily on the job.

Pretty much every job I've ever had has said candidates must be degree qualified. I've never been to university. 🤷

I disagree, my old job came up and quite niche 'essential' criteria were listed, there are few in my profession who meet all the criteria. It's reasonable to apply and you can 'work towards' something, ie masters level qualification needed for my old job, however, Willingness to complete a masters in the near future or evidence of masters level modules would suffice. Shame to say there were no applicants, and I'm sure there were plenty who could've applied

Men have the audacity to submit CVS for roles they meet very little criteria on so I'd go for it and see where it takes you. Unless it's a ridiculously niche role the recruiters are always aware they don't get unicorns with everything very often.

They state a lot of skills but are usually willing to look at you if you have A, B and not C for example.

Good luck!

I work in quite a specific public sector role. Due to job evaluation across the organisation as a whole, quite a few roles have very specific 'essential' criteria in order to justify bumping them up the payscales. In reality, we celebrate when we get good candidates who can demonstrate they partially meet these criteria...

Good luck!

It is worth a punt and they would not waste their time talking to you if they didn’t think you had potential 😃

Men are far more likely to apply for a role when they don’t meet all the criteria and in my 20 years of HR, I’ve often seen it pay off! Good luck!

I think it massively depends whether you have the transferable skills to very quickly gain the essential experience. If you do, absolutely go for it. One reason men get promoted more easily is that they are prepared to put themselves up for jobs they aren't fully experienced in yet whereas women typically wait until they can tick all boxes. If you have worked on engines but not for rockets and know your way around Mars, then you stand a chance

I have today received an invitation to interview for a post where I do not meet the first two essential criteria. I do, however, have masses of relevant experience. If this recruitment was merely a tick-box exercise, I would not have passed first sift. They must consider my potential for this role to be worth the lack of qualifications.

I expect at interview to be examined on my competencies. If the specific qualifications are actually essential, I will say that if they will support me doing so I am willing to study for them as part of my role.

Just incase anyone else finds this via searching, I managed 2 rounds of interviews, before being told my application wasn't going to be taken any further.
So, definitely worth a go, but not the role for me.