4 ms·

On the recruiting side (I’m not a recruiter but a director making a lot of hires), we actually do the opposite all the time — we post relatively senior position

On the recruiting side (I’m not a recruiter but a director making a lot of hires), we actually do the opposite all the time — we post relatively senior positions then downlevel whoever we hire to fit their experience level. A lot of people think more highly of themselves than the employment market does. We look at the job posting as a brand marketing — all we’re really trying to do is get you to apply and fill the funnel. The whole hiring process is designed to be a calibration on role, cultural fit, compensation, etc.

htrp 5y ago
Downleveling is a flaming trainwreck in almost every case. Seems almost like the bait and switch that the OP company is railing against in the blog post. I'm curious to see how you guys have managed it without disgruntled employees quitting within 18 months.
- wayoutthere 5y ago
  We have the conversation about level before we give an offer. It’s genuinely because we don’t want to put someone in a role they’re going to struggle with and be unhappy or burn out. I would much rather underlevel someone starting out and promote them 6 months later than hire them at a higher level and then needing to have the conversation about performance early in their tenure or cut their bonus. I work in consulting so high turnover is just expected. We’re actually a lot lower than the industry average. The job isn’t for everyone, but there are people who thrive in this environment. For everyone else who isn’t a good fit, we get a year or so worth of billable hours, they get exposed to a lot of different scenarios, and we give folks a lot of runway to find something they do like. It’s just the nature of the beast though. If I get a candidate who is legitimately at level, I bring them in at level. There’s no need to be shady about it, but job search sites are what they are and that’s the game you play.

htrp 5y ago

Downleveling is a flaming trainwreck in almost every case. Seems almost like the bait and switch that the OP company is railing against in the blog post. I'm curious to see how you guys have managed it without disgruntled employees quitting within 18 months.

wayoutthere 5y ago
We have the conversation about level before we give an offer. It’s genuinely because we don’t want to put someone in a role they’re going to struggle with and be unhappy or burn out. I would much rather underlevel someone starting out and promote them 6 months later than hire them at a higher level and then needing to have the conversation about performance early in their tenure or cut their bonus. I work in consulting so high turnover is just expected. We’re actually a lot lower than the industry average. The job isn’t for everyone, but there are people who thrive in this environment. For everyone else who isn’t a good fit, we get a year or so worth of billable hours, they get exposed to a lot of different scenarios, and we give folks a lot of runway to find something they do like. It’s just the nature of the beast though. If I get a candidate who is legitimately at level, I bring them in at level. There’s no need to be shady about it, but job search sites are what they are and that’s the game you play.