3 ms·
Having worked with recruiters on the other side, I think the biggest contributor is a version of number 2 - they think they will get a better result via their a
by stathibus 5y ago
Having worked with recruiters on the other side, I think the biggest contributor is a version of number 2 - they think they will get a better result via their amazing powers of verbal persuasion and charm.
In reality they are probably applying selection bias and only moving forward on the people sufficiently interested that they actually pick up the phone.
- thisoneistheone 5y ago
- roenxi 5y agoThat sounds effective, they are probably happy with that bias. If people aren't interested enough to talk to them for half an hour then the outcome will probably be so-so.
- stathibus 5y agoI really disagree, it selects people with high tolerance for others wasting their time, so it chases away the most high value candidates.
- temp_praneshp 5y agoEven if the selection part is true, it chases away people who cannot be bothered to interact with a human being for 20 minutes or so. High value is a different set of people with unknown intersection.
- slotrans 5y agoWhen I get 10 LinkedIn messages a day, no, I cannot be bothered to interact with each of them for 20 minutes. And since they all refuse to send along any relevant details whatsoever, I can't even cull that to the subset that's plausibly interesting.
- sanderjd 5y agoNo, it is not people who can't interact with a human being for 20 minutes, but with tens of them. If it were an agent / talent model, where it is a somewhat large amount of interaction with a single individual, that would be one thing. But interactively sharing the same information with 20 different recruiters is just a waste of time that has nothing to do with an inability to be bothered to interact with people.
- tehjoker 5y ago> via their amazing powers of verbal persuasion and charm. Not really. Just the mere act of talking to a human being is a more invested act than an email.