Pages

Monday, October 12, 2009

Personal Assistant or BAS

I recently discovered a rather verbose want ad seeking a “new personal assistant.” My first thought was to ponder the fate of the former assistant(s). Was this a search for what would prove to be the most recent in a sequence of assistants? In what requirements did those who preceded this fresh face fail?

Intrigued by this search for something or someone Other than the position’s predecessors, I read on. In exchange for performing tasks normally associated with personal assistants – scheduling, filing, correspondence, travel reservations, research, running errands and covering someone else’s ass - the ad hinted that I would garner the diversity of experience required to run my business someday. All in a fun filled work environment.

Certainly I possessed the personal attributes required for the position: organized, detailed, unafraid to accept or offer constructive criticism, strong personality, hard worker, hard player, effective communicator. And I love to laugh.

In addition to forwarding my curriculum vitae listing my job history, experience and skills, the employer mandated – “these are mandated, not optional” – the following:

· Writing sample, half page, my choice of topic

· A description of my life a decade from now

· A picture of myself

· A list of my top five books or movies or television shows (one, not all three)

· Links to my social networking profiles or personal blog or webpage

While I found no problem with submitting a writing sample, or a glimpse into my vision of life ten years from today, or list that might reveal something about my personal taste in literature, film or popular entertainment or with a link easily obtained by googling me, the demand for a photo incense me.

Was this guy (it had to be a male) fricking kidding me?

After all, the ad did not offer prospective employees a link to the employer’s resume, the employer’s writing samples, the employer’s personal tastes and interests, or a photograph to judge the employer’s qualifications to enlist my services.

If the pretentious and unethical (if not illegal) demand for a photograph was not enough to relegate the ad to my scam box, the disclaimer spelling out the infractions for disqualification from consideration for the position were:

· Typo or grammatical error in an submission

· Unprofessional email address

· Lack of qualifying experience

Pondering the subjectivity of professional vs. unprofessional email addresses, my mind wandered to the old adage about casting the first stone. . .

While it is true that Chaucer often used “that” instead of “who”, the author in search of a new rather than old Personal Assistant is no Chaucer. In his phrase “the best candidate that responds to this ad”, the use of “that” rather than “who” dehumanizes the job seeker, lumping her into a group of things rather than an individual. Candidates, and employees, are individuals, people. Not things.

In listing his submission mandates, the author writes:

Answer to this question: Describe your life 10 years from now?

Even if the sentence “Describe your life 10 years from now” is an interrogative rather than an imperative sentence, it is an indirect question and should end with a period, not a question mark.

He who is without two grammatical errors in his application to reap the benefits of my skill set and experience should not throw stones.

As my friend Elisabeth reminds me frequently: BAS.