6 ms·

I work at Apple and my team has been “hiring” for the last 2 years with no offers so far. Why? Because even if you are a good candidate, hiring is not as easy

I work at Apple and my team has been “hiring” for the last 2 years with no offers so far. Why? Because even if you are a good candidate, hiring is not as easy as people think. Among the many challengues we have I can list the following: 1. The people interested in your profile have minimal influence in the process, 2. There are people who are always chasing for the shiny new object (or person, in this case), 3. There is a sea of resumes in our hands, and we pick the best, but they want the world and lose them during negotiations, and the ones at the bottom of the list who really want the job, move on because the process to get to them takes too long (several months), 4. People over estimate their qualifications. Their abilities may be good, but they write over the top accomplishments in their resumes that are hard to believe, at least without proof, and they are the first ones to get rejected, 5. HR interferes too much in the process. They sometimes change the job requirements, sometimes ignore candidates that we explicitely tell them to follow up with, sometimes extend meaningless offers just to keep potentially good candidates in the hook (people with offers at other Big Co.), sometimes force candidates to accept offers without a signed paper, so on and so forth. Obviously, good candidates get fed up with this and decline/renege the offer, we lose them, and the people below them too because the negotiation took too long (3-5 months), 6. I really want to hire motivated individuals, and I know many people like me across different teams, but we lose motivation over time because of all the roadblocks, and the cycle(s) described above repeats. The whole process is kind of silly. I have reviewed hundreds of resume from people who are doing amazing work at other companies, but we reject them for very small things. Only two of approximately 20 referrals got an offer, and I am 100% sure that all of those referrals are as good or better than me (facepalm).

ryandrake 4y ago
A lot of companies say "we're hiring" but are not hiring, defined as actually extending an offer and actually employing someone. They're fishing, but not catching, or they're catching and releasing. We need a more precise word than "hiring". Everyone can say they're hiring, but they're not actually hiring anyone--they're just fishing.
- rapind 4y ago
  I don’t know if this has changed, but I remember most tech businesses were perpetually hiring, because part of the visa process to bring in workers was a requirement to prove that you tried to find local talent first. (source: I once worked in the states on a TN visa, and this was the practice at the time.)
- neilv 4y ago
  > We need a more precise word than "hiring". I think it's precise. Two terms: * Hiring -- When you are actually ready to make offers to hire people. * Pretending -- When you are trying to keep the hiring funnel full, or to give the appearance of business doing well, but not ready to actually make offers.
  - clumsysmurf 4y ago
    Another way I have heard this is described is, "we're always hiring, and never hiring"
    - giantg2 4y ago
      Schrodinger's job opening
- mixmastamyk 4y ago
  We're interviewing.
- bernawil 4y ago
  I think this comes from the fact that we give a lot of leeway to the definition of "supply" and "demand" in common economic talk. "I'd totally buy a Ferrari for $500" says nothing about the supply or demand for Ferraris. Economists pull demand curves out of their asses when the only verifiable facts are actual, concrete sales.
- ruh-roh 4y ago
  This is interesting - I have been passively monitoring LinkedIn and a few others for senior engineering management roles for the last year or so (VPE, DoE). I am not really looking, I have only pursued a couple of them, but my feed/inbox is noteworthy. Many of the "openings" have been out there for multiple months, some a year+. A good handful are tweaked slightly every few weeks to appear new. I can understand fishing for individually contributing junior-to-senior developers, but for senior management roles? Would a company really troll waters to find a senior leader that they don't really need? "Hey, look what I found, let's find a spot for him/her!" My theory has been either (1) those companies are super picky, which is understandable given the impact of those roles, or (2) they don't really know what they want, and they are using the interviewing process to figure it out. But regardless of 1v2, those companies likely have people fulfilling those management responsibilities today that they have otherwise deemed unqualified, or are very-senior C-level folks that are too busy to do it well.
amlozano 4y ago
Regarding over the top accomplishments in resumes: every resume writing workshop tells you to do this. I don't think you should be rejecting these first just because someone listened to the advice of "sell yourself".
- mola 4y ago
  Or maybe they should, so we can stop with this nonsense and make it easier for everyone.
  - godelski 4y ago
    I think to do that we need to recognize that it is really hard to actually evaluate people. Resumes are only a weak signal. A lot of people think they're way better at hiring than they are. Just like employees overestimate their skills (and are encouraged to because the resume process) employers also over estimate their hiring skills (and are encouraged to because the bureaucratic process).
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Have a relative who's quite accomplished in HR and recruiting and, can confirm, they don't encourage outright lying but they do insist you have to stretch everything to the max and freely imply a lot more than a very honest person might be inclined to. Judging from the results for people I know who've had this person re-work their résumés, it's extremely good advice. Non-braggy résumés seem to just get round-filed for not knowing how to play the game, even if they're otherwise very well-written. I'm sure there are a few folks hiring—probably almost all at relatively small enterprises—who have the opposite reaction but they're instead rejecting good people who are simply playing their hand the best possible way, given the rules. Those who fluff up their résumés get much better results.
  - layer8 4y ago
    > Non-braggy résumés seem to just get round-filed for not knowing how to play the game That doesn’t make sense, there must be a different causality.
neon_electro 4y ago
Please start hiring remote folks.
anon50118810 4y ago
I'm the OP and I don't mean to argue your experience, but my post was more pushing back on the idea that non-FAANG companies are desperate for people. In other words, I'm pushing back on the idea that anyone willing to work outside of FAANG for $100k-$150k should be able to find something super quick.
- tacheiordache 4y ago
  There's a surplus of devs right now, lots of layoffs and all that. I'm sure compensation is going to take a hit till the market will stabilize itself. We're going to have a how low are you willing to go in the short term future and it's going to be a bit rough for everyone.
  - anon50118810 4y ago
    I'm not really concerned about this too much. There are millions of software developers in the U.S., the tens of thousands getting laid off from FAANG are a drop in the bucket. Many of them will be absorbed into other upmarket positions that I wouldn't get hired into anyway.
pyb 4y ago
What's the political situation ? It may well be that some execs further up the chain don't really want your team to be hiring ? That would explain the friction.
- twelve40 4y ago
  yes, these problems sounds very solvable if/when someone up the chain actually starts to _want_ to hire.
devoutsalsa 4y ago
This team is not hiring, or at least not taking it seriously. The bar is not high, it's just petty. The only explanation is that you literally need something that only a handful of people can do, in which case you wouldn't be talking to that many people.
- giantg2 4y ago
  And yet if op says this to management/HR, he would be the one looking for a job.
lowbloodsugar 4y ago
Is it possible your recs are just to support the “We can’t find anybody so we have to hire foreigners” narrative.
giantg2 4y ago
It may not be as easy as people think, but there are also items on the list that could be addressed by the company. It should not take several months to go from applications to offer for most jobs. It sounds like I would not want to work at Apple with all the games HR plays.
ketralnis 4y ago
I can confirm the time taken, negotiations, and HR interference at Apple. They took about 6 months to get me through their process, by which time my current company gave me the promotion that I was trying to get by moving companies in the first place. (Really a lateral move but to me it was a promotion.)
mejutoco 4y ago
> they write over the top accomplishments in their resumes that are hard to believe, at least without proof Do you ask them for proof or reject them without asking?
tennisflyi 4y ago
> 4. People over estimate their qualifications. Their abilities may be good, but they write over the top accomplishments in their resumes that are hard to believe, at least without proof, and they are the first ones to get rejected, You would never get to the next round otherwise.
smugma 4y ago
1-4 (and sort of 6 as a result) seem like general hiring struggles, and it's hard to account/adjust for that. #5 sounds like you have a bad HR team, or don't have the right relationship with them. I've had HR discard good resumes because they were "over-qualified" and try and force me to interview people who aren't qualified, or try and convince me to say that I want someone with a college degree (the compromise was "or equivalent", which basically makes the request for a degree worthless) but ultimately, it seems like you should be able to control your rec more. The quality of recruiters varies wildly, have you tried escalating to get better support? Or maybe it's chicken and egg, because it's been two years without hiring, HR thinks you're the problem and isn't going to put effort into it?
temp4886 4y ago
Your 4th point is very interesting. These days companies seem to want their candidates to tell the specific accomplishments that they, personally, had completed. I wonder how is it possible to do anything like that without looking conceited? Usually developers of all levels of skills work in teams and if something really good comes out as a result, frequently it's not a single-person merit. Secondly, I do honestly wonder how many developers, even here on HN, have done something so impressive they think it's worth talking about in detail. Most likely whatever they have done, somebody else has already done it better than them in the past. Finally, I can speak from personal experience, when I tried explaining how I (either alone or in the team) have fixed something by applying some solution, the interviewer had made me look like a fool by asking trivial questions, like if we had considered doing this or that, or why haven't we done this instead. During the very limited interview time, it is impossible to convey the full context to the interviewer and too often they don't appreciate that. Too often the companies are looking for unicorn developers but when you somehow get matched, accept a job offer and join the company expecting that maybe this time it's going to be different, better somehow, you are met with the same awful solutions, everything barely working and people being people, just like everywhere else. Suddenly, the fact that you left your ordinary software house and joined FAANG (or MANGA, etc.) loses any significance, except for the financial benefit.

ryandrake 4y ago

A lot of companies say "we're hiring" but are not hiring, defined as actually extending an offer and actually employing someone. They're fishing, but not catching, or they're catching and releasing. We need a more precise word than "hiring". Everyone can say they're hiring, but they're not actually hiring anyone--they're just fishing.

rapind 4y ago
I don’t know if this has changed, but I remember most tech businesses were perpetually hiring, because part of the visa process to bring in workers was a requirement to prove that you tried to find local talent first. (source: I once worked in the states on a TN visa, and this was the practice at the time.)
neilv 4y ago
> We need a more precise word than "hiring". I think it's precise. Two terms: * Hiring -- When you are actually ready to make offers to hire people. * Pretending -- When you are trying to keep the hiring funnel full, or to give the appearance of business doing well, but not ready to actually make offers.
- clumsysmurf 4y ago
  Another way I have heard this is described is, "we're always hiring, and never hiring"
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Schrodinger's job opening
mixmastamyk 4y ago
We're interviewing.
bernawil 4y ago
I think this comes from the fact that we give a lot of leeway to the definition of "supply" and "demand" in common economic talk. "I'd totally buy a Ferrari for $500" says nothing about the supply or demand for Ferraris. Economists pull demand curves out of their asses when the only verifiable facts are actual, concrete sales.
ruh-roh 4y ago
This is interesting - I have been passively monitoring LinkedIn and a few others for senior engineering management roles for the last year or so (VPE, DoE). I am not really looking, I have only pursued a couple of them, but my feed/inbox is noteworthy. Many of the "openings" have been out there for multiple months, some a year+. A good handful are tweaked slightly every few weeks to appear new. I can understand fishing for individually contributing junior-to-senior developers, but for senior management roles? Would a company really troll waters to find a senior leader that they don't really need? "Hey, look what I found, let's find a spot for him/her!" My theory has been either (1) those companies are super picky, which is understandable given the impact of those roles, or (2) they don't really know what they want, and they are using the interviewing process to figure it out. But regardless of 1v2, those companies likely have people fulfilling those management responsibilities today that they have otherwise deemed unqualified, or are very-senior C-level folks that are too busy to do it well.

amlozano 4y ago

Regarding over the top accomplishments in resumes: every resume writing workshop tells you to do this. I don't think you should be rejecting these first just because someone listened to the advice of "sell yourself".

mola 4y ago
Or maybe they should, so we can stop with this nonsense and make it easier for everyone.
- godelski 4y ago
  I think to do that we need to recognize that it is really hard to actually evaluate people. Resumes are only a weak signal. A lot of people think they're way better at hiring than they are. Just like employees overestimate their skills (and are encouraged to because the resume process) employers also over estimate their hiring skills (and are encouraged to because the bureaucratic process).
yamtaddle 4y ago
Have a relative who's quite accomplished in HR and recruiting and, can confirm, they don't encourage outright lying but they do insist you have to stretch everything to the max and freely imply a lot more than a very honest person might be inclined to. Judging from the results for people I know who've had this person re-work their résumés, it's extremely good advice. Non-braggy résumés seem to just get round-filed for not knowing how to play the game, even if they're otherwise very well-written. I'm sure there are a few folks hiring—probably almost all at relatively small enterprises—who have the opposite reaction but they're instead rejecting good people who are simply playing their hand the best possible way, given the rules. Those who fluff up their résumés get much better results.
- layer8 4y ago
  > Non-braggy résumés seem to just get round-filed for not knowing how to play the game That doesn’t make sense, there must be a different causality.

neon_electro 4y ago

Please start hiring remote folks.

anon50118810 4y ago

I'm the OP and I don't mean to argue your experience, but my post was more pushing back on the idea that non-FAANG companies are desperate for people. In other words, I'm pushing back on the idea that anyone willing to work outside of FAANG for $100k-$150k should be able to find something super quick.

tacheiordache 4y ago
There's a surplus of devs right now, lots of layoffs and all that. I'm sure compensation is going to take a hit till the market will stabilize itself. We're going to have a how low are you willing to go in the short term future and it's going to be a bit rough for everyone.
- anon50118810 4y ago
  I'm not really concerned about this too much. There are millions of software developers in the U.S., the tens of thousands getting laid off from FAANG are a drop in the bucket. Many of them will be absorbed into other upmarket positions that I wouldn't get hired into anyway.

pyb 4y ago

What's the political situation ? It may well be that some execs further up the chain don't really want your team to be hiring ? That would explain the friction.

twelve40 4y ago
yes, these problems sounds very solvable if/when someone up the chain actually starts to _want_ to hire.

devoutsalsa 4y ago

This team is not hiring, or at least not taking it seriously. The bar is not high, it's just petty. The only explanation is that you literally need something that only a handful of people can do, in which case you wouldn't be talking to that many people.

giantg2 4y ago
And yet if op says this to management/HR, he would be the one looking for a job.

lowbloodsugar 4y ago

Is it possible your recs are just to support the “We can’t find anybody so we have to hire foreigners” narrative.

giantg2 4y ago

It may not be as easy as people think, but there are also items on the list that could be addressed by the company. It should not take several months to go from applications to offer for most jobs. It sounds like I would not want to work at Apple with all the games HR plays.

ketralnis 4y ago

I can confirm the time taken, negotiations, and HR interference at Apple. They took about 6 months to get me through their process, by which time my current company gave me the promotion that I was trying to get by moving companies in the first place. (Really a lateral move but to me it was a promotion.)

mejutoco 4y ago

> they write over the top accomplishments in their resumes that are hard to believe, at least without proof Do you ask them for proof or reject them without asking?

tennisflyi 4y ago

> 4. People over estimate their qualifications. Their abilities may be good, but they write over the top accomplishments in their resumes that are hard to believe, at least without proof, and they are the first ones to get rejected, You would never get to the next round otherwise.

smugma 4y ago

1-4 (and sort of 6 as a result) seem like general hiring struggles, and it's hard to account/adjust for that. #5 sounds like you have a bad HR team, or don't have the right relationship with them. I've had HR discard good resumes because they were "over-qualified" and try and force me to interview people who aren't qualified, or try and convince me to say that I want someone with a college degree (the compromise was "or equivalent", which basically makes the request for a degree worthless) but ultimately, it seems like you should be able to control your rec more. The quality of recruiters varies wildly, have you tried escalating to get better support? Or maybe it's chicken and egg, because it's been two years without hiring, HR thinks you're the problem and isn't going to put effort into it?

temp4886 4y ago

Your 4th point is very interesting. These days companies seem to want their candidates to tell the specific accomplishments that they, personally, had completed. I wonder how is it possible to do anything like that without looking conceited? Usually developers of all levels of skills work in teams and if something really good comes out as a result, frequently it's not a single-person merit. Secondly, I do honestly wonder how many developers, even here on HN, have done something so impressive they think it's worth talking about in detail. Most likely whatever they have done, somebody else has already done it better than them in the past. Finally, I can speak from personal experience, when I tried explaining how I (either alone or in the team) have fixed something by applying some solution, the interviewer had made me look like a fool by asking trivial questions, like if we had considered doing this or that, or why haven't we done this instead. During the very limited interview time, it is impossible to convey the full context to the interviewer and too often they don't appreciate that. Too often the companies are looking for unicorn developers but when you somehow get matched, accept a job offer and join the company expecting that maybe this time it's going to be different, better somehow, you are met with the same awful solutions, everything barely working and people being people, just like everywhere else. Suddenly, the fact that you left your ordinary software house and joined FAANG (or MANGA, etc.) loses any significance, except for the financial benefit.