3 ms·

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 motivate

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.
  - jroseattle 9y ago
    > everyone else letting the ATS do it is going to harm our efforts indirectly. Yep, this. I actually see this as a future competitive advantage for us. I want us to be known for having a really positive experience for anyone who wishes to work with us, no matter the choice/decision that ultimately happens. It will take time to get there, but consistency builds reputation.
hpcjoe 9y ago
I am sorry that I have to agree with this. The HR filter is a hurdle that can be engineered around (I am not arguing that it should be, but hey, if they erect technological measures in the interests of efficiency of filter process, they should be focusing on the individuals bright enough to learn about this, take advantage of it). Once you understand how resumes are filtered/scored, you can adapt your submission to this. I am not saying to do this. I am saying, given the technological filter barriers that have been erected between applicant looking at a post and the real hiring manager, yeah, it is a reasonable response. In terms of a search, I went through this recently. I activated my network (with a few well placed emails) as well as carefully submitting applications to various companies. My response rate to the latter was about 40%, including 2 solid offers. My response rate to the former was 100%, including 1 solid offer that route, 2 likely offers (had I continued). I ended the process by selecting the offer that I thought would be best for me. I had additional people I knew calling to recruit me for up to a month past this. Not bad for an older-than-40-ish person. My advice is quite simply, build your network. Make sure people know you, and know what you are capable of. Make sure your history is documented. Update your linkedin. Keep your skills current (ex-Fortran programmer here, so really ... current), show public code contributions. Play with relevant things so you can talk intelligently about them. What bothered me were the "technical" interviews I ran through with some of the prospects, some of whom spent inordinate amounts of time on things unrelated to the tasks at hand. This is just like sales, you are looking for a fit. And if someone is looking at you for a particular role and asking you deep (meaningless in context) questions about things outside of this role ... this should be a huge signal or red flag to you. Just like with a sales call or meeting, you need to be able to understand when something goes sideways. Don't get emotionally invested in this. You are selling yourself (your time anyway), and you have to hustle to make it happen.

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.
- jroseattle 9y ago
  > everyone else letting the ATS do it is going to harm our efforts indirectly. Yep, this. I actually see this as a future competitive advantage for us. I want us to be known for having a really positive experience for anyone who wishes to work with us, no matter the choice/decision that ultimately happens. It will take time to get there, but consistency builds reputation.

hpcjoe 9y ago

I am sorry that I have to agree with this. The HR filter is a hurdle that can be engineered around (I am not arguing that it should be, but hey, if they erect technological measures in the interests of efficiency of filter process, they should be focusing on the individuals bright enough to learn about this, take advantage of it). Once you understand how resumes are filtered/scored, you can adapt your submission to this. I am not saying to do this. I am saying, given the technological filter barriers that have been erected between applicant looking at a post and the real hiring manager, yeah, it is a reasonable response. In terms of a search, I went through this recently. I activated my network (with a few well placed emails) as well as carefully submitting applications to various companies. My response rate to the latter was about 40%, including 2 solid offers. My response rate to the former was 100%, including 1 solid offer that route, 2 likely offers (had I continued). I ended the process by selecting the offer that I thought would be best for me. I had additional people I knew calling to recruit me for up to a month past this. Not bad for an older-than-40-ish person. My advice is quite simply, build your network. Make sure people know you, and know what you are capable of. Make sure your history is documented. Update your linkedin. Keep your skills current (ex-Fortran programmer here, so really ... current), show public code contributions. Play with relevant things so you can talk intelligently about them. What bothered me were the "technical" interviews I ran through with some of the prospects, some of whom spent inordinate amounts of time on things unrelated to the tasks at hand. This is just like sales, you are looking for a fit. And if someone is looking at you for a particular role and asking you deep (meaningless in context) questions about things outside of this role ... this should be a huge signal or red flag to you. Just like with a sales call or meeting, you need to be able to understand when something goes sideways. Don't get emotionally invested in this. You are selling yourself (your time anyway), and you have to hustle to make it happen.