3 ms·

> That makes very little sense for software jobs, where it's the workers that are scarce. The thing that is not scarce from the recruiters' view is applicants

by curtis 8y ago

> That makes very little sense for software jobs, where it's the workers that are scarce. The thing that is not scarce from the recruiters' view is applicants or maybe even resumes. This is because anyone looking for a job can easily, due to the magic of the internet, apply at dozens or even hundreds of jobs. And applicants don't even have to apply for jobs any more. If you're on LinkedIn, they can come looking for you, and again, due to the magic of the internet, there are plenty of possible people to consider for a job. So instead of artificial scarcity we have artificial abundance. This problem seems to be analogous to the online dating problem. Technology has made one part of the problem far too easy and this causes big problems in other parts of the pipeline.

bradleyjg 8y ago
That’s fine for the first stage of the funnel. I send in a resume and hear nothing back no harm, no foul. But by the time a candidate is past a phone screen that’s a validated lead. A company that was really desperate to hire wouldn’t treat validated leads so poorly. That they do means that they aren’t and we should disregard self-serving claims to the contrary.
- curtis 8y ago
  > But by the time a candidate is passed a phone screen that’s a validated lead. A company that was really desperate to hire wouldn’t treat validated leads so poorly. They certainly shouldn't treat validated leads poorly, but we've seen ample evidence that they often do. Part of the problem may be (I'm less sure about this part) is that it is essentially the same people -- and same organization -- managing the overall hiring process through all stages of the funnel. They start with a shotgun process and they keep using a shotgun process in later stages when they absolutely shouldn't be. It's better if you've got a prospective hiring manager inside the company that wants to hire you and is keeping an eye on the overall process -- this is what often happens whey you're recruited by employee referral. However, this just isn't an option at places like Google (and I think Facebook and Amazon as well) where you get hired into a global pool rather than hired into a specific team.
wpietri 8y ago
Yes, exactly. Ease of applying is one of the things sustaining the problem. It makes companies feel overwhelmed with resume spam. A few years back when I was hiring at Code for America, I redid things so that it was harder for the lazy applicant but easier for the serious one. I asked people to send me something resume-like (LinkedIn was fine), but to skip the cover letter and instead write a short answer to 1 of 5 questions: http://williampietri.com/writing/2015/slightly-less-awful-hiring/ http://williampietri.com/writing/2015/slightly-less-awful-hi... It was great. Anybody who did that got a call back from me, usually within 24 hours, just to chat a bit about what we each were looking for. Starting from that made it much easier for me to treat each person like an actual person.

by curtis 8y ago

bradleyjg 8y ago

That’s fine for the first stage of the funnel. I send in a resume and hear nothing back no harm, no foul. But by the time a candidate is past a phone screen that’s a validated lead. A company that was really desperate to hire wouldn’t treat validated leads so poorly. That they do means that they aren’t and we should disregard self-serving claims to the contrary.

curtis 8y ago
> But by the time a candidate is passed a phone screen that’s a validated lead. A company that was really desperate to hire wouldn’t treat validated leads so poorly. They certainly shouldn't treat validated leads poorly, but we've seen ample evidence that they often do. Part of the problem may be (I'm less sure about this part) is that it is essentially the same people -- and same organization -- managing the overall hiring process through all stages of the funnel. They start with a shotgun process and they keep using a shotgun process in later stages when they absolutely shouldn't be. It's better if you've got a prospective hiring manager inside the company that wants to hire you and is keeping an eye on the overall process -- this is what often happens whey you're recruited by employee referral. However, this just isn't an option at places like Google (and I think Facebook and Amazon as well) where you get hired into a global pool rather than hired into a specific team.

wpietri 8y ago

Yes, exactly. Ease of applying is one of the things sustaining the problem. It makes companies feel overwhelmed with resume spam. A few years back when I was hiring at Code for America, I redid things so that it was harder for the lazy applicant but easier for the serious one. I asked people to send me something resume-like (LinkedIn was fine), but to skip the cover letter and instead write a short answer to 1 of 5 questions: http://williampietri.com/writing/2015/slightly-less-awful-hiring/ http://williampietri.com/writing/2015/slightly-less-awful-hi... It was great. Anybody who did that got a call back from me, usually within 24 hours, just to chat a bit about what we each were looking for. Starting from that made it much easier for me to treat each person like an actual person.