Should I or shouldn't I?

[cessna152towser]

I agree with Chas, I would say nothing either to him or to the prospective employer.

I know all the possible qualified applicants in the area, hell I trained most of them, and as far as qualifications go, not to sound arrogant, I am the most qualified based on what they are looking for.

Yes indeed, but don't be too disappointed if they choose to bring in new blood rather than the established expert as seems to happen often nowadays.

[guardsman]

not to help is better than dropping him in it and probably making you look devious to the interviewer. If you sell yourself well enough which it seems you should be laughing

[SFCRick]

A very wise man once told me the "answer", he said " in everything you do in life, just ask yourself this- if my Mother finds out about this, will she be proud? if not-Do Not Do It".
I wish I had met him much earlier in my life and saved myself some problems. If you are asking the question, you know the answer.

[warrior]

This.

Don't be too surprised if someone vastly less qualified gets the job over you. It's been my experience that managers rarely hire the best qualified person, and certainly not the acknowledged expert in the field.

You would know more than the boss, and he would know that too. Your knowledge would be bad for his self-esteem because he doesn't have the knowledge himself. Better (in his view) that he hires someone he can train for the job than face the prospect of butting heads with the expert. With you there is always the potential that he will lose on the facts and have to resort to "because I said so" to get what he wants done.

Management is rarely about doing the right thing, it's about doing something, anything, and then relying on your authority to argue that even if it's wrong, it really is correct.

This best fits my worries over this position. As a business owner myself with employees I fully understand the process and quite frankly I would not hire myself for a similar position within my own company. Basically I am overqualified for any private sector position other than that which I currently have, save executive level in one of the larger national franchise operations.
Fortunately the position is not a private sector opening but instead an in house position at a public institution. I know the place well as I began my career in the area and the institution was one of my clients. I know well the exact nature of what they seek as I once provided the service they are now seeking to perform in house rather than to contract it out.
What absolutely amazes me is the numbers. I am sure, no make that know, that they will acquire a large costs savings per annum by performing the tasks from within rather than the per event contract, on an emergency service type basis, as they did in the past. What I wonder is how they arrived at the salary quoted as I know it is well above the industry norm to the tune of double. I know I could not and would not pay that sum to one of mine unless it was in commissions. For half the price they could obtain a satisfactorily qualified applicant and for that figure my company could provide a fully qualified contracted applicant and save them the associated costs of hiring an employee. Whatever the case, I do find myself in an odd state over this.
On paper I would take a loss to accept this position, yet it is a total wash with the current state of the economy and future economic uncertainty. Basically I would give up the potential for ever increasing income, though not without large risks, in exchange for security as I approach the latter third of my career. Part of me says screw it and continue on as I am with the throttles to the stops but other obligations urge caution and a look toward the exits.
All I do know is that I have approached this as I have throughout my life with a "kill it and drag it home" attitude. I have zero doubt in my not so humble mind that I am not only the most qualified but that I will be offered the position. I am afterall the master of my own destiny. Thanks for letting me ramble.

[Tobus]

Management is rarely about doing the right thing, it's about doing something, anything, and then relying on your authority to argue that even if it's wrong, it really is correct.

Wow, umm... that's a rather jaded and pessimistic view, and I'm sorry that your experience has led you to that conclusion. But as a (mid-level) manager myself, I have to disagree with it as a general description of "management". Not all managers are the inept, low-self-esteem, vindictive types you have described. Nor would I think it's "rare" for management to do the right thing. It is often the case, though, that employees do not understand the larger issues with which managers contend, and they may interpret it in the terms you describe.

I know we have several other members of this forum who are in management positions as well, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who took umbrage at this description of our role in business. Perhaps your experience with management has led to a case of a few bad apples spoiling the whole bunch, but I assure you that we are not all bad! I would venture to say that most of us are just honest, hard-working fellows trying to do the right thing.

On another tack, though:

Fortunately the position is not a private sector opening but instead an in house position at a public institution. I know the place well as I began my career in the area and the institution was one of my clients. I know well the exact nature of what they seek as I once provided the service they are now seeking to perform in house rather than to contract it out.
What absolutely amazes me is the numbers. I am sure, no make that know, that they will acquire a large costs savings per annum by performing the tasks from within rather than the per event contract, on an emergency service type basis, as they did in the past. What I wonder is how they arrived at the salary quoted as I know it is well above the industry norm to the tune of double. I know I could not and would not pay that sum to one of mine unless it was in commissions. For half the price they could obtain a satisfactorily qualified applicant and for that figure my company could provide a fully qualified contracted applicant and save them the associated costs of hiring an employee. Whatever the case, I do find myself in an odd state over this.

Perhaps you could use this as your "in" with them? Stand on your experience and knowledge, and offer them your services with an explanation of how you can save them money over the other applicants. You'll be a shoo-in!

[xman]

Since you know what to do in the interview I will not speak to that. It is abhorrent to tear another down in order to build oneself up. Regarding helping him understand, well why not. Help him immensely and let him know that you also are going in to do the job interview. This should give him the willies and put him off his game.

[Detroitpete]

Well I am somewhat chagrined to have posted the question in the first place as I really knew the correct answer all along. I shall not mention it.

I sometimes allow my competitive nature to bump hard against what I know to be right.

Funny thing about a competitive nature; it is best expressed when matching your best against another's best. "Beating" someone whom you have "helped" to no longer be at his/her best, is not a win.

[ForresterModern]

Warrior, from your last post I sense you know your way around the business and have what appears to be an execellent overview of the situation. A public institution wishes to hire someone to an in-house contracted position in order to save themselves the current highly excessive costs they are now paying for farming out those same services, and you mention some concern that the salary they are quoting for this position seem exceedingly high for what they are asking of the candidate who gets the position.

Then I get the sense of some indecision on your part with regards to taking the part, a probable pay cut but possible job security improvement, something these days we are all seeking, especially those of us entering the final third of our careers.

First, I would suggest you lose your indecision and make a full-fledged effort to obtain an offer of the job, put out your best in the interview, no holds barred. It is all moot until you get that offer, at which time you can then sit back and do the comparisons of current versus offered salary, benefits, security, potential further advancement, etc.... As a manager of some high-priced professionals myself I can tell you that, aside from the required capability to perform the required duties, the next most important thing I look for is someone who comes with an eager and forward looking attitude, an attitude of "how can I help you achieve what you are seeking to achieve?" and even better present some independent ideas of how you think you might start to meet or better exceed their expectations. Someone who does not aggressively seek the job and followup with another contact to solidify that interest to me means that person is considering my position not necessarily as their first choice, and I will typically move on to other more interested candidates, even if they may be less qualified/experienced.

I think your concerns of wonderment about how they can offer what in your opinion is a salary far in excess of that needed to obtain an employee who can perform these duties should be tempered by the fact that they probably recognize just how much they think they can save and that it is worth it to them to offer that level of salary to achieve that end goal. They may also have other as yet unforeseen to you motives for offering a high salary, truly expecting to obtain that special level of expertise that leaves them with no doubt that they did the right thing toward achieving their end. They may have ideas about extending that person's spectrum of responsibility, thereby warranting the higher salary.

Any way you look at it, if you think you MIGHT want the job go for it aggressively and with positive intent on obtaining it and helping them in achieving their goals. Only after you get the offer can you then really do a full analysis of the merits of the position and its benefits, etc.... Until then, even in the situation of you having far greater knowledge about the topic than likely even those who are seeking to hire you (or another candidate), COMPLACENCY is your most serious and profound enemy.

Confidence, Completeness (background preparation required), Composure, Curiosity (always have a list of relevant duty-related, not salary or benefits related, questions ready for the slow spots in any interview---demonstrates true interest in the job itself), Capability (and the ability to demonstrate it on the fly), Curriculum vitae (sell your background experience whenever it seems to match their needs), Contact (both eye and social/professional) and Connection (finding some common ground with your interviewer and with the direction of the entity that is hiring you) are the traits you seek to exude.

Good luck with it. I hope you are offered the position, and if you are and do decide to take it , that it brings you great prosperity and satisfaction.

[Bing]

Wow, umm... that's a rather jaded and pessimistic view, and I'm sorry that your experience has led you to that conclusion.

Scott Adams has fashioned a highly successful cartooning career with that as one of his premises.

And I did start out saying "in my experience", sorry to have offended.

[zirrow]

... sorry to have offended.

it's a common theme around here, apparently. Someone is always offended by a post on this forum. It has even been said that you can have an argument in empty room here.