4 ms·

The one absolutely, infuriating thing about jobs that will cause me to throw keyboards through windows: A 'requirement' or a 'minimum' must be exactly that. I

The one absolutely, infuriating thing about jobs that will cause me to throw keyboards through windows: A 'requirement' or a 'minimum' must be exactly that. If they are negotiable, they aren't a requirement or minimum. GET THIS RIGHT, GODDAMNIT. THOSE WORDS HAVE DEFINITIONS FOR A REASON. If you can't come up with any, then chances are they aren't actually required! And if you don't actually have any, you don't have to write those words in the job description! Fucking easy, right? This helps everyone. I don't waste time applying for jobs where I don't meet the requirements, and you don't waste time rejecting me for the same reason. The fact that this isn't followed is why we have dumb job-seeker rules like "just apply even if you don't meet those requirements". It's throwing common sense out along with the keyboards. And yes, fuck recruiting companies that tell you to do this, too.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
danenania 7y ago
The thing is that when you’re hiring, assuming you have some autonomy in the process, your ‘minimum requirements’ are always somewhat negotiable. If someone is truly amazing in an important skill that you need, but doesn’t meet some other so-called requirements, you very well might hire that person, even choosing them over others that do meet all the ‘requirements’. At the same time, you do want to establish some sort of minimum bar so you aren’t swamped with wildly underqualified applicants. You just hope the exceptional people will realize that they’re exceptional and that exceptions can always be made. It’s a difficult balance to get right. That said, I totally understand the frustration. These should not be called requirements, since they aren’t really, but this is just how life works. You’re better off adjusting to the fact that there’s always wiggle room than becoming bitter about it.
- 0xDEFC0DE 7y ago
  If you need general talent like that, make a general talent job posting or put a message with a generic jobs@company email address at the top of your job board. That signals that you're willing to consider people who don't currently meet any requirements on any of your jobs. That also gives you the option to shut it down if general hiring has to freeze or you stop having the time to review general talent because you need to prioritize hiring for specific roles. I really think that for a lot of positions out there, there really are very few requirements actually needed (e.g. security clearances, certificates). Everything else really falls under ideal or nice-to-have. Requirements changing based on the candidate means they can probably be reduced or eliminated entirely. That might even increase the talent pool that you can choose from by inviting others to apply. Hell, maybe we can start putting the same effort into writing good job ads that candidates put into their resumes, cover letters, and interviewing skills. It'd be nice to have some reciprocation in the effort department.
cwp 7y ago
It's not that hiring managers are using the words incorrectly. It's that their predictions about their own future behaviour are wrong. They think they'll have a lot of applicants, and hope that they'll reduce their own workload by helping the lower-quality candidates self-select out of the process, or maybe getting HR to do it for them. In practice it doesn't work that way. There aren't that many applicants, and none of them are exactly what the requirements specify. So they have to do the work of really understanding a candidate's skill set and experience, and then sketch out the onboarding and training that would be required to get them up to speed. Which is fine, because there aren't clear-cut predictors for success at these sorts of jobs anyway.
AtlasBarfed 7y ago
I thought exhaustive requirements were for disqualifying Americans so H-1B positions could be filled.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

danenania 7y ago

The thing is that when you’re hiring, assuming you have some autonomy in the process, your ‘minimum requirements’ are always somewhat negotiable. If someone is truly amazing in an important skill that you need, but doesn’t meet some other so-called requirements, you very well might hire that person, even choosing them over others that do meet all the ‘requirements’. At the same time, you do want to establish some sort of minimum bar so you aren’t swamped with wildly underqualified applicants. You just hope the exceptional people will realize that they’re exceptional and that exceptions can always be made. It’s a difficult balance to get right. That said, I totally understand the frustration. These should not be called requirements, since they aren’t really, but this is just how life works. You’re better off adjusting to the fact that there’s always wiggle room than becoming bitter about it.

0xDEFC0DE 7y ago
If you need general talent like that, make a general talent job posting or put a message with a generic jobs@company email address at the top of your job board. That signals that you're willing to consider people who don't currently meet any requirements on any of your jobs. That also gives you the option to shut it down if general hiring has to freeze or you stop having the time to review general talent because you need to prioritize hiring for specific roles. I really think that for a lot of positions out there, there really are very few requirements actually needed (e.g. security clearances, certificates). Everything else really falls under ideal or nice-to-have. Requirements changing based on the candidate means they can probably be reduced or eliminated entirely. That might even increase the talent pool that you can choose from by inviting others to apply. Hell, maybe we can start putting the same effort into writing good job ads that candidates put into their resumes, cover letters, and interviewing skills. It'd be nice to have some reciprocation in the effort department.

cwp 7y ago

It's not that hiring managers are using the words incorrectly. It's that their predictions about their own future behaviour are wrong. They think they'll have a lot of applicants, and hope that they'll reduce their own workload by helping the lower-quality candidates self-select out of the process, or maybe getting HR to do it for them. In practice it doesn't work that way. There aren't that many applicants, and none of them are exactly what the requirements specify. So they have to do the work of really understanding a candidate's skill set and experience, and then sketch out the onboarding and training that would be required to get them up to speed. Which is fine, because there aren't clear-cut predictors for success at these sorts of jobs anyway.

AtlasBarfed 7y ago

I thought exhaustive requirements were for disqualifying Americans so H-1B positions could be filled.