JUNIOR WITH FIVE YEARS OF WORK EXPERIENCE
Junior with "experience"? Yes, it’s possible – but not in the way you might think.
This post is intended for all juniors entering the world of work, to encourage them to be curious, explore, and acquire knowledge beyond what any authority imposes, but also for Hiring Managers who work with juniors and interns, helping them find the right fit in a sea of CVs. 🙂
We always hear that famous line: “Seeking a junior with ten years of experience.” I do not deny that there are companies whose expectations contradict those of the applicants; however, what Job Descriptions that seek experience in juniors often look for is precisely the result of their personal initiative through volunteer experience and professional internships. Yes, I understand many will say: "I don't want to work for free," which I support when it comes to a regular employment relationship. However, during studies, there is a myriad of organizations within the faculty itself and a myriad of student organizations led by students, which students can belong to and gather relevant experience for the field they have chosen, and the ultimate result of these actions will be a contribution to society and the city through those same projects. They will learn how an organization functions as a structure, what is necessary to carry out a project from start to finish, which people they will choose for their projects and their organization, and they will encounter many people where they will adapt their communication style to bring their subject matter closer to others, through various festivals and fairs. And this is highly valued by employers who look at a CV; in fact, it is desirable.
What does this signal to the employer? Above all, it shows initiative and curiosity for something that comes from outside the scope of what we learn at faculty, which is, if related, the first encounter with what we will actually be doing after graduation. It tells the employer that the candidate was, above all, interested in their own future, interested in exploring what they would actually be doing, but also in going a step further than what is already formally required. To explain this graphically: when taking an exam, you can learn only the questions for the exam, you can learn from a script made by other students, or you can read the whole book and thereby understand the subject matter; however, you can also go a step further and read research on that topic, watch relevant speakers on YouTube, etc. Which of these students do you think will better understand and complete an oral exam with full understanding of the material, and which one will receive an offer for a demonstrator or assistant position if it is open at that moment? I believe someone might think: “Yes, but I can also show that at work, and focus only on faculty,” but the truth is actually this – it isn't quite possible. What is shown through previous engagement reflects the engagement you will show at work later, except in the case where there was serious work on oneself and a conscious desire to change that behavior, which will also be seen through some other form of engagement.
Human functioning is conditioned by the principle of generalization, and your way of functioning will reflect on all aspects of your life. If a candidate at faculty was not interested in getting involved in anything except the detailed instructions of the institutional authority (professors, curriculum), there is a high probability that even at work, they won't learn anything more than the detailed instructions of their superior—which is often not enough, because no one can be at the disposal of a new employee 8 hours a day. To perform a job well, one must often self-initiate the learning of related, complementary knowledge and skills. For example, in an HR position, although there are HR administrators and lawyers they collaborate with who handle the legal-administrative part of the job, they must know the Labor Law in detail – primarily to avoid making a mistake, to adapt their way of working and implementation of certain actions in accordance with the law, and finally, to be able to recognize irregularities to which they must react. Will they use that Labor Law at work by drafting contracts? No, but it is necessary for them as information to perform their job qualitatively.
Of course, this does not apply to students who, for any reason, were prevented due to external circumstances (health conditions, etc.). But if your attitude is: “I don’t want to be part of those organizations, those people annoy me and I don’t like that,” which I often heard at my faculty from my colleagues, ask yourself: how agile are you actually to work in a team of people you didn't choose? And how ready are you actually to collaborate with people with whom you wouldn't necessarily have a friendly relationship, because the job must be finished, whether it is a colleague or a client? Your colleagues may be similar to you in sensibility, because they will be chosen that way, but you won't be able to choose your client.
Let's be realistic: when a candidate is a junior without work experience, even with all the volunteer experience, they are a risky human resources investment for the firm, because if after the probationary period the firm decides not to keep them and give them an employment contract, it means they have spent resources on you. When an older colleague trains you, they spend their time and knowledge, and they could have used that same time for their own work and the advancement of their own knowledge. If a company provides a paid internship or hired someone immediately, and the junior does not show that the contract is justified, the firm is actually at a loss. Keep in mind that even when seniors are hired, their onboarding lasts 6-7 months before independent ownership of the position; thus, human resources are also investments made by companies. Only seniors already come with experience they need to justify, while juniors come with a desire to acquire that knowledge – and there is no better way to show that to an employer than to demonstrate that you have actually been doing it.
Also, when a junior expects certain conditions from their future employer, they must have the material to negotiate and proof that what they want can pay off for the employer. Just as employees are there for the salary, employers are there for profit, and that is a common denominator. If the employer sees that the junior actually has grounds to negotiate, it gives them the information that the person has knowledge, ability, and integrity. If the candidate has nothing to support their value in the market, then unfortunately, they close the doors for themselves.
This small difference is what distinguishes a junior from other candidates. For every junior job ad, there are always 200+ applicants, but only 10% will be interviewed.
Juniors, be in that 10%.