4 ms·

I'm confused about employers' desire to cast a wide net, only to filter through applicants thoughtlessly. What's to be confused about? They don't give a fuck

I'm confused about employers' desire to cast a wide net, only to filter through applicants thoughtlessly. What's to be confused about? They don't give a fuck - about you, or your time. Why? Because they perceive (rightly or wrongly) that there's no business incentive for them to do so. Either way... if they leave you dangling, or make you answer just a few silly questions too many, and/or sign up for (nearly) unlimited numbers of whiteboarding or hacker ranks sessions, or "take-home projects" they never (or at best only barely) look at, it's because... look, do you think these people have time to think about what they're doing, let alone how it affects the time and patience of those candidates they don't necessarily want to hire... or even, in some abstract sense, their long-term reputation as a company that makes at least some kind of effort to create a not entirely-unpleasant interview process? Of course not. It's much easier to just throw shit at the wall -- or as it were, at the whiteboard -- and see what sticks. So that's what they do.

dhimes 9y ago
there's no business incentive for them to do so. But there is one: to save the precious time of valuable people. I think it's an interesting suggestion.
- shanusmagnus 9y ago
  Even more important than that is to get people who really are aligned with what the company actually is, instead of just the standard bullshit that everybody says. I, too, really like the idea, but I wonder if, in practice, it wouldn't work because companies don't introspect deeply enough to understand what makes them distinct? For instance, if what's remarkable about your company is that you have a great culture where people goof off a lot and have a lot of fun, and still manage to get a passable amount of work done, would anyone dare to self-identify that way?
  - lynnetye 9y ago
    You're so spot on. Some companies do not introspect deeply enough, nor do they have the desire! I've met some of them and guess what –– they don't end up creating a profile on Key Values. Honestly, I think it says a lot about team who put in the time and care to create a profile. The exercise of selecting 8 values and qualifying them signals a real desire to invest in people, culture, and to make sure values actually translate into behaviors. Re: your example, I see it as my job to encourage them to communicate who they are loudly and proudly! There's pressure on both sides (job-seekers and employers) to check all of the boxes. It doesn't make sense to do that at all though.
    - dhimes 9y ago
      I think there are a couple of confounding problems. One is the "Astrology" problem. Well-written horoscopes are written in such a way that people want to believe these things about themselves- and they are nebulous enough that they can. Who doesn't want to think of themselves as being a great friend when someone really needs you? In the case of your website, I think you should consider giving scenarios and force people to make choices between options on a Likert scale. The other issue is that companies may truly be trying to find the most intelligent (for whatever that word means) person as long as she or he isn't malignant- someone who will be successful in future endeavors after the one they are hiring for is finished. In that case they are just dragging a wide net and trying to get the biggest fish. This is all throw out the window, of course, when some of their screeners have ad-hoc and very personal criteria for rejection (two typos, or not being gender-inclusive, or whatever). Then the process becomes ipso facto a cultural screening process.
  - sharemywin 9y ago
    the other side of the coin. who would invest in such a company? a few people maybe but most probably not.
    - dhimes 9y ago
      If it turns out to be a truly better idea then plenty.

dhimes 9y ago

there's no business incentive for them to do so. But there is one: to save the precious time of valuable people. I think it's an interesting suggestion.

shanusmagnus 9y ago
Even more important than that is to get people who really are aligned with what the company actually is, instead of just the standard bullshit that everybody says. I, too, really like the idea, but I wonder if, in practice, it wouldn't work because companies don't introspect deeply enough to understand what makes them distinct? For instance, if what's remarkable about your company is that you have a great culture where people goof off a lot and have a lot of fun, and still manage to get a passable amount of work done, would anyone dare to self-identify that way?
- lynnetye 9y ago
  You're so spot on. Some companies do not introspect deeply enough, nor do they have the desire! I've met some of them and guess what –– they don't end up creating a profile on Key Values. Honestly, I think it says a lot about team who put in the time and care to create a profile. The exercise of selecting 8 values and qualifying them signals a real desire to invest in people, culture, and to make sure values actually translate into behaviors. Re: your example, I see it as my job to encourage them to communicate who they are loudly and proudly! There's pressure on both sides (job-seekers and employers) to check all of the boxes. It doesn't make sense to do that at all though.
  - dhimes 9y ago
    I think there are a couple of confounding problems. One is the "Astrology" problem. Well-written horoscopes are written in such a way that people want to believe these things about themselves- and they are nebulous enough that they can. Who doesn't want to think of themselves as being a great friend when someone really needs you? In the case of your website, I think you should consider giving scenarios and force people to make choices between options on a Likert scale. The other issue is that companies may truly be trying to find the most intelligent (for whatever that word means) person as long as she or he isn't malignant- someone who will be successful in future endeavors after the one they are hiring for is finished. In that case they are just dragging a wide net and trying to get the biggest fish. This is all throw out the window, of course, when some of their screeners have ad-hoc and very personal criteria for rejection (two typos, or not being gender-inclusive, or whatever). Then the process becomes ipso facto a cultural screening process.
- sharemywin 9y ago
  the other side of the coin. who would invest in such a company? a few people maybe but most probably not.
  - dhimes 9y ago
    If it turns out to be a truly better idea then plenty.