4 ms·

Just to weigh in on the flip side of this from a hiring perspective, if it's clear to me that someone has done zero research on my particular company, has no kn

Just to weigh in on the flip side of this from a hiring perspective, if it's clear to me that someone has done zero research on my particular company, has no knowledge about what it is we do, and has no articulate explanation of why this particular job is a good fit for them, then I pass on the candidate instantly. I don't know if the shotgun a resume with a cut-and-paste cover letter approach works to some degree, but it at least doesn't work for me. I know that applying to jobs is a pain in the ass, and that there are far too many bad actors on the hiring side (ie not giving a clear no and just ghosting applicants). But if you enter the application process making it clear you have done your research, you know what the company does, what the specific role is, and even better if you know something about the people on my side, who you want to work with and why, etc. then you are guaranteed an interview and you're starting a mile ahead of anyone just shotgunning in a resume. Yes, that takes a LOT longer than 2 minutes. But with that approach maybe you won't need to send in hundreds of applications.

polote 9y ago
Why would you only consider only applicants who made research about your company before ? What kind of skill this task is proving you ? If I'm right, you are trying to find people who have the rights skills and the ones who match the culture of the company, right ? Then not doing any research doesn't mean anything I do the same, if the application process is longer than 2 minutes, I skip, if the cover letter is mandatory, I skip. But when I get an interview I prepare a lot.
- dougmccune 9y ago
  Part of it is showing that you know how to be effective, in this case how to effectively get yourself hired. A huge part of any tech job is about how you approach problems, creative thinking, and figuring out the best way to make an impact -- much of which is not about actually writing code. So it's about showing that you can take the viewpoint of someone other than yourself (in this case the person doing the hiring) and figure out how to be effective. Refusing to even write a paragraph explaining why you're the right person for a particular job is simply not an effective way to try to get a job. It shows naivete and a lack of understanding of the system involved, which makes me assume that you'll approach similar non-technical roadblocks, of which there will be millions, in the same ineffective way.
  - avip 9y ago
    Wait. Your reasoning is paradoxical in a Schrodinger-like manner. If yourself did not take into account the cover letter and assumed "research", the effective applicant suddenly becomes the one who did not waste time on that.
  - polote 9y ago
    Well I was expecting this answer, so basically you only search for people who don't apply for a lot of positions and take a lot of time for each of them before applying. Don't be surprised if the people you recruit lack the real skills needed by your company
avip 9y ago
That sounds like ego-driven decision making. The assumed correlation between "time candidate spent reading our PR statements" and "odds she's a good fit" seems hard to justify.
- wallacoloo 9y ago
  It's an interest thing: if the applicant doesn't even know what type of product you make, then what happens when you bring them in for an interview and it turns out they just fundamentally don't care about your product? Either (a) they'll turn you down based on that _after_ learning more about your product during the interview, which has wasted both your times or (b) this will get glossed over, they'll work for you for a few months, and then search for a new job after discovering that working on your product gives them no fulfillment. It's not an ego-driven "only consider the candidates who put in effort specifically to satisfy me" thing. It's more "there's a 50% chance that this applicant who did zero research wouldn't actually be happy in this line of work, whereas any applicant who spends ten minutes of research and then still applies has already decided that this line of work is probably a good fit for them." Does this justify it for you? Or do you still feel that asking candidates to know generally what your company makes beforehand is unreasonable?
  - avip 9y ago
    [EDITED] I think "knowing what the company does in general" is reasonable. Anything beyond that is on the unjustifiable-impractical plain. First quarter.
mrburton 9y ago
Interesting, what would make you work with a company to help you find candidates? What do current companies fk up on when trying to place candidates with you?
cgb223 9y ago
Personally I research the companies I work for before I apply I write unique cover letters for each with a copy and pasted section about my skill set I don’t think a poorly made application process has a lot to do with doing research on a company That is, my issue is with bad software not necessarily shotgunning resumes
- dougmccune 9y ago
  This sounds entirely reasonable, and honestly I'd say puts you ahead of many applicants out of the gate. The rest of the discussion on this thread turned into a debate about whether it's reasonable to expect a level of background research and effort on the part of the applicant or not. But it doesn't sound like that's what you were really arguing against, so we all just went off on a tangent :) I can easily get behind the idea that the actual submission platform/software should make it easy to apply.
lj3 9y ago
> But with that approach maybe you won't need to send in hundreds of applications. Unlikely. There's a reason so many people take the shotgun approach. The response rate from cold online applications is very, very low. The 'hiring funnel' is also very discouraging. Every additional step in the hiring process is a step in which you may never hear from a single company again for reasons that may or may not have anything to do with you. Are you going to spend a lot of time up front to send an application into the void and never hear anything back again? "Bad actors on the hiring side" include companies posting job openings they have no intention of filling. There's an information asymmetry here and spamming resumes and stock cover letters is how I resolve that. I know the company is serious about hiring somebody if I make it past the first HR/recruiter phone screen to talk to an actual engineer. Then I invest some time, do my research, contact some of the company's engineers through twitter and linkedin, etc. The company gets bonus points if first contact is made by the actual hiring manager or someone even higher up the food chain. I wish I could tell right away who's serious about hiring somebody and who isn't. I haven't found a way to tell from the job ad alone.

polote 9y ago

Why would you only consider only applicants who made research about your company before ? What kind of skill this task is proving you ? If I'm right, you are trying to find people who have the rights skills and the ones who match the culture of the company, right ? Then not doing any research doesn't mean anything I do the same, if the application process is longer than 2 minutes, I skip, if the cover letter is mandatory, I skip. But when I get an interview I prepare a lot.

dougmccune 9y ago
Part of it is showing that you know how to be effective, in this case how to effectively get yourself hired. A huge part of any tech job is about how you approach problems, creative thinking, and figuring out the best way to make an impact -- much of which is not about actually writing code. So it's about showing that you can take the viewpoint of someone other than yourself (in this case the person doing the hiring) and figure out how to be effective. Refusing to even write a paragraph explaining why you're the right person for a particular job is simply not an effective way to try to get a job. It shows naivete and a lack of understanding of the system involved, which makes me assume that you'll approach similar non-technical roadblocks, of which there will be millions, in the same ineffective way.
- avip 9y ago
  Wait. Your reasoning is paradoxical in a Schrodinger-like manner. If yourself did not take into account the cover letter and assumed "research", the effective applicant suddenly becomes the one who did not waste time on that.
- polote 9y ago
  Well I was expecting this answer, so basically you only search for people who don't apply for a lot of positions and take a lot of time for each of them before applying. Don't be surprised if the people you recruit lack the real skills needed by your company

avip 9y ago

That sounds like ego-driven decision making. The assumed correlation between "time candidate spent reading our PR statements" and "odds she's a good fit" seems hard to justify.

wallacoloo 9y ago
It's an interest thing: if the applicant doesn't even know what type of product you make, then what happens when you bring them in for an interview and it turns out they just fundamentally don't care about your product? Either (a) they'll turn you down based on that _after_ learning more about your product during the interview, which has wasted both your times or (b) this will get glossed over, they'll work for you for a few months, and then search for a new job after discovering that working on your product gives them no fulfillment. It's not an ego-driven "only consider the candidates who put in effort specifically to satisfy me" thing. It's more "there's a 50% chance that this applicant who did zero research wouldn't actually be happy in this line of work, whereas any applicant who spends ten minutes of research and then still applies has already decided that this line of work is probably a good fit for them." Does this justify it for you? Or do you still feel that asking candidates to know generally what your company makes beforehand is unreasonable?
- avip 9y ago
  [EDITED] I think "knowing what the company does in general" is reasonable. Anything beyond that is on the unjustifiable-impractical plain. First quarter.

mrburton 9y ago

Interesting, what would make you work with a company to help you find candidates? What do current companies fk up on when trying to place candidates with you?

cgb223 9y ago

Personally I research the companies I work for before I apply I write unique cover letters for each with a copy and pasted section about my skill set I don’t think a poorly made application process has a lot to do with doing research on a company That is, my issue is with bad software not necessarily shotgunning resumes

dougmccune 9y ago
This sounds entirely reasonable, and honestly I'd say puts you ahead of many applicants out of the gate. The rest of the discussion on this thread turned into a debate about whether it's reasonable to expect a level of background research and effort on the part of the applicant or not. But it doesn't sound like that's what you were really arguing against, so we all just went off on a tangent :) I can easily get behind the idea that the actual submission platform/software should make it easy to apply.

lj3 9y ago

> But with that approach maybe you won't need to send in hundreds of applications. Unlikely. There's a reason so many people take the shotgun approach. The response rate from cold online applications is very, very low. The 'hiring funnel' is also very discouraging. Every additional step in the hiring process is a step in which you may never hear from a single company again for reasons that may or may not have anything to do with you. Are you going to spend a lot of time up front to send an application into the void and never hear anything back again? "Bad actors on the hiring side" include companies posting job openings they have no intention of filling. There's an information asymmetry here and spamming resumes and stock cover letters is how I resolve that. I know the company is serious about hiring somebody if I make it past the first HR/recruiter phone screen to talk to an actual engineer. Then I invest some time, do my research, contact some of the company's engineers through twitter and linkedin, etc. The company gets bonus points if first contact is made by the actual hiring manager or someone even higher up the food chain. I wish I could tell right away who's serious about hiring somebody and who isn't. I haven't found a way to tell from the job ad alone.