Job applicants, self-introduction letter

I had two “job-seeking” periods. The second half of last year and the second half of this year. Both times, with serious determination, the methods were a little different, and the results were vastly different.

Last year, it submitted applications to dozens of companies, mainly small and medium-sized enterprises, and with the exception of just one small and medium-sized company, all of them failed to get a single interview and fell coolly in the document screening process. This year, on the other hand, five applications were put into public corporations and large corporations alone. Three of them were submitted, took two exams and interviews, and were finally accepted by a company. In fact, the two job openings were not just a success or failure of the results, but a whole process was different. Although the specifications were almost identical, I pondered over the difference, and I could pick one of the biggest differences.

This time, he “introduced himself” in his self-introduction letter. I don’t think it’s natural, but in fact, most large companies’ self-introduction letters these days do not require self-introduction. In other words, evaluate the package, not the applicant’s kernel. That’s why the newly coined word is the word ‘self-fiction.’ Of course, it is true that companies have no choice but to do so, as hundreds to thousands of applicants flock to the market. Therefore, it is almost customary to add MSG to areas that cannot be proven anyway. Although I sprayed MSG because I’m not an idiot, I didn’t think this was an important weapon.

Rather than creating things that never happened, I just put my energy into writing ‘writing’. Last year my cover letter said, ‘I am this kind of person. Isn’t that great?’ This year, ‘I’m this kind of person, do you understand?’ Rather than appealing my competence and expertise, I focused on creating empathy and persuading readers (person in charge of personnel affairs). Appealing to experience and values, etc., was seen as one of the processes of persuasion, not as the main weapon of persuasion. To this end, rather than inflating the contents, we did our best to refine the structure of individual sentences and the logic between them, and to make the direction toward conclusion a natural straight line.

That’s why I think finding a ‘corporate that can support’ should be a priority. In fact, I chose only the companies and jobs I really wanted to go to this time, and on the contrary, I didn’t apply for the companies that only I could apply if I wrote a novel. I applied only for companies and jobs related to my major, actual interests, and abilities. This is a condition that allows us to focus on the ‘writing’ itself.

Another option is to challenge the law of 50-3-1. It is a newly coined term among today’s job seekers that they can interview three companies if they apply for 50 companies, and finally pass one of them. While this may be the case, the question is whether I can survive well in a company that has deceived myself. I’m worried that I’m quitting my job after a month of pouring myself into companies of interest.

For this reason, I didn’t want to increase my value by “self-introduction without self-introduction” even if I failed the test equally. It may have been lucky after all, but as a result, there was a big difference from last year when the specs were not much different, so I think maybe this could be one of the answers. I hope many job seekers find a place to shine in the dark recession.