5 ms·

> the script I used to algorithmically apply I'm not the same as everyone else, so take my opinions with a grain of salt. I'm a hiring manager, with many open

> the script I used to algorithmically apply I'm not the same as everyone else, so take my opinions with a grain of salt. I'm a hiring manager, with many openings. To those who are considering this approach, keep this in mind: - This industry is smaller than you think. I have colleagues all over town and across the country. It's not uncommon for me to be maybe 2-3 degrees of separation from any person or place on your resume. If I think you automated your way into a conversation with us, I don't discount you right away but I highly doubt your sincerity. - Generic templated messages vs. thoughtful direct messages are _easy_ to detect. Even if I'm wrong, if it doesn't pass the smell test, I will pass. Do NOT kid yourself about the importance of managing quality vs. quantity in discussion with us. This process likely works in landing you an interview, but it can ignore the human element. To me, how you get in the door matters. Picking out the interested-after-the-fact vs. those who have done their homework on us is easy, and that matters greatly to me. I hire for the long-term and career-growth minded, and I recognize anyone on my staff can up and leave at any moment. I commit time, resources and energy to ensuring my staff is healthy and happy with us. This saturate-the-airwaves approach to introductions, even if refined, makes me think you're going to treat us as a temporary stop, simply looking to jump to the next "better" opportunity, and therefore leaves me less interested in devoting time to you. If all this just sounds like better execution with this approach, you're right. Just remember you don't get a second chance with us to make a first impression.

SmellTheGlove 9y ago
I'm a hiring manager as well and let me throw out a partial counterpoint: What OP is doing isn't because he doesn't want to be genuine with you. It's motivated because the HR screen is the hurdle to overcome, and there will be no opportunity to have a genuine conversation with you unless he gets past the HR filter first. I have a solution to this that works for me, but maybe not for everyone - I have HR do a very basic screen for my posting (candidate in market, unless I'm going to relo; current career level somewhere in my ballpark), with the exception that I want everything that includes a cover letter. If you're not big enough to have an initial screen happening, then obviously my point doesn't apply and you're entirely correct. But for many, getting anywhere near the hiring manager is the most difficult step. Plus, from my memories as an applicant - to startups and larger firms alike - I can't tell you how many times in my past I've taken the step of writing a nice, personalized cover letter and a tailored resume for something which was a reasonably good fit, only to either never hear a word or to receive an automated form rejection in return. Courtesy is a two way street - if your ATS blasts rejections to people, you can't get upset with candidates blasting applications to play the numbers.
- ThrowawayR2 9y ago
  > It's motivated because the HR screen is the hurdle to overcome, and there will be no opportunity to have a genuine conversation with you unless he gets past the HR filter first. If everybody starts doing automated résumé spamming, then nobody will get past the HR filter, even if for no other reason than the volume of spammed résumés will become overwhelming. HR recruiters will respond by putting up other roadblocks to return things back to a manageable volume, most likely by requiring one of the much-hated automated coding tests as a screening step before a résumé will be considered, and then everybody loses out. What this person is doing should be considered highly anti-social and inconsiderate.
- jroseattle 9y ago
  Yes and thank you, very good points. We are a larger organization, and getting past the HR filter is understandable. We have taken significant measures to improve that step with us, and it has yielded much better throughput on worthy candidates. At sounds as though we do something similar internally -- incorporate shared reviews from our team with inbound resumes. And to your point about a two-way street -- I couldn't agree more. We respond to everyone, and do so manually. We don't automate that way, as I want a human contact behind the message. (We don't get thousands of resumes, but we do get in the low hundreds.) I've found executing those directly is meaningful and translates to better communication over time. I think of it as a function of customer service, not recruiting. To really tie it all together: we want to speak with those who have genuine interest, and are willing to put effort into it from the beginning of any conversation with us. We hope our candidates do the same.
  - SmellTheGlove 9y ago
    I agree with all of that. And just to be clear, I never disagreed with the principle of your original post. The thing is, for everyone doing it like you (or let's say us, since it sounds like we have a similar approach), there are hundreds of organizations letting the ATS handle it. Unfortunately, everyone else letting the ATS do it is going to harm our efforts indirectly. I should add that this is probably easy for me to say since I'm outside of a tech hub and also receive a lower volume. If I were getting thousands per vacancy, I'd have to find a different approach, but handing the keys to the ATS is not how I'd want to have it go.
sidlls 9y ago
All of your comment applies to you and possibly the company you work for. From my perspective the notion of "career-minded" is especially something that is rapidly altering. The trend toward shorter engagements as a full-time engineer is a lagging indicator of the broader industry trend toward commoditizing development. Companies foster career development less and less, and employees recognize this more and more. Also this industry is actually much larger than you suggest, and I think your "2-3 degrees" claim is a bit extraordinary. There is far more software development going on outside the tech hubs than I think people in these hubs appreciate, and in many ways under the radar of the like who frequent HN.
- jroseattle 9y ago
  > your comment applies to you and possibly the company you work for Very true. As always, your mileage my vary. > Companies foster career development less and less, and employees recognize this more and more. Yes -- which is why we care about career development; it's something we view strategically. And yes, while some job functions are being commoditized, people are not. This is true across the industry, whether other companies choose to believe it or not. We take that seriously and make a commitment to those who work with us. > this industry is actually much larger than you suggest, and I think your "2-3 degrees" claim is a bit extraordinary. There is far more software development going on outside the tech hubs than I think people in these hubs appreciate, and in many ways under the radar of the like who frequent HN. When we recruit, we do so on a broad level and will look where others don't as a way to get a leg up on our competition. As a result, our staff works out of multiple locations nationally, as well as Canada and the EU. I have colleagues in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, St. Louis, Nashville, Ft. Lauderdale, Atlanta, Dallas, San Antonio, Phoenix, Charlotte, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, Kansas City -- that's off the top of my head. My network is sizable. The point of my comment is this: don't assume that if you reach out to me, I won't have any connection to your background through mutual relationships. I can't speak for others, but I doubt I'm so unique in this respect.

SmellTheGlove 9y ago

I'm a hiring manager as well and let me throw out a partial counterpoint: What OP is doing isn't because he doesn't want to be genuine with you. It's motivated because the HR screen is the hurdle to overcome, and there will be no opportunity to have a genuine conversation with you unless he gets past the HR filter first. I have a solution to this that works for me, but maybe not for everyone - I have HR do a very basic screen for my posting (candidate in market, unless I'm going to relo; current career level somewhere in my ballpark), with the exception that I want everything that includes a cover letter. If you're not big enough to have an initial screen happening, then obviously my point doesn't apply and you're entirely correct. But for many, getting anywhere near the hiring manager is the most difficult step. Plus, from my memories as an applicant - to startups and larger firms alike - I can't tell you how many times in my past I've taken the step of writing a nice, personalized cover letter and a tailored resume for something which was a reasonably good fit, only to either never hear a word or to receive an automated form rejection in return. Courtesy is a two way street - if your ATS blasts rejections to people, you can't get upset with candidates blasting applications to play the numbers.

ThrowawayR2 9y ago
> It's motivated because the HR screen is the hurdle to overcome, and there will be no opportunity to have a genuine conversation with you unless he gets past the HR filter first. If everybody starts doing automated résumé spamming, then nobody will get past the HR filter, even if for no other reason than the volume of spammed résumés will become overwhelming. HR recruiters will respond by putting up other roadblocks to return things back to a manageable volume, most likely by requiring one of the much-hated automated coding tests as a screening step before a résumé will be considered, and then everybody loses out. What this person is doing should be considered highly anti-social and inconsiderate.
jroseattle 9y ago
Yes and thank you, very good points. We are a larger organization, and getting past the HR filter is understandable. We have taken significant measures to improve that step with us, and it has yielded much better throughput on worthy candidates. At sounds as though we do something similar internally -- incorporate shared reviews from our team with inbound resumes. And to your point about a two-way street -- I couldn't agree more. We respond to everyone, and do so manually. We don't automate that way, as I want a human contact behind the message. (We don't get thousands of resumes, but we do get in the low hundreds.) I've found executing those directly is meaningful and translates to better communication over time. I think of it as a function of customer service, not recruiting. To really tie it all together: we want to speak with those who have genuine interest, and are willing to put effort into it from the beginning of any conversation with us. We hope our candidates do the same.
- SmellTheGlove 9y ago
  I agree with all of that. And just to be clear, I never disagreed with the principle of your original post. The thing is, for everyone doing it like you (or let's say us, since it sounds like we have a similar approach), there are hundreds of organizations letting the ATS handle it. Unfortunately, everyone else letting the ATS do it is going to harm our efforts indirectly. I should add that this is probably easy for me to say since I'm outside of a tech hub and also receive a lower volume. If I were getting thousands per vacancy, I'd have to find a different approach, but handing the keys to the ATS is not how I'd want to have it go.

sidlls 9y ago

All of your comment applies to you and possibly the company you work for. From my perspective the notion of "career-minded" is especially something that is rapidly altering. The trend toward shorter engagements as a full-time engineer is a lagging indicator of the broader industry trend toward commoditizing development. Companies foster career development less and less, and employees recognize this more and more. Also this industry is actually much larger than you suggest, and I think your "2-3 degrees" claim is a bit extraordinary. There is far more software development going on outside the tech hubs than I think people in these hubs appreciate, and in many ways under the radar of the like who frequent HN.

jroseattle 9y ago
> your comment applies to you and possibly the company you work for Very true. As always, your mileage my vary. > Companies foster career development less and less, and employees recognize this more and more. Yes -- which is why we care about career development; it's something we view strategically. And yes, while some job functions are being commoditized, people are not. This is true across the industry, whether other companies choose to believe it or not. We take that seriously and make a commitment to those who work with us. > this industry is actually much larger than you suggest, and I think your "2-3 degrees" claim is a bit extraordinary. There is far more software development going on outside the tech hubs than I think people in these hubs appreciate, and in many ways under the radar of the like who frequent HN. When we recruit, we do so on a broad level and will look where others don't as a way to get a leg up on our competition. As a result, our staff works out of multiple locations nationally, as well as Canada and the EU. I have colleagues in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, St. Louis, Nashville, Ft. Lauderdale, Atlanta, Dallas, San Antonio, Phoenix, Charlotte, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, Kansas City -- that's off the top of my head. My network is sizable. The point of my comment is this: don't assume that if you reach out to me, I won't have any connection to your background through mutual relationships. I can't speak for others, but I doubt I'm so unique in this respect.