9 ms·

I've been in the job board / HR Tech space for a while, and every time I see a state pass a law requiring advertising the salary range, I'm reminded of a few fa

I've been in the job board / HR Tech space for a while, and every time I see a state pass a law requiring advertising the salary range, I'm reminded of a few facts: * Showing your salary range as long as it is at market wage or higher delivers 14% more applicants. It is a good idea to show salary on job ads. * If you don't give the job board a salary range, they will use tools like salary.com or their own tools to show an "estimated salary range" on your job so they pick up more clicks when they syndicate your job to other sources (i.e. email alerts and other job boards). * If you are uncompetitve on wages, fix it. Even though there's a lot of doom and gloom out there, the truth is that unemployment did not go up in November. * If you advertise a job respond to applicants quickly - as in within minutes of the application. A single day of delay in response causes 28% of candidates to become unresponsive to recruiters (this is from our company's research). It drops to 51% become unresponsive 48 hours later.

yamtaddle 4y ago
> * If you advertise a job respond to applicants quickly - as in within minutes of the application. A single day of delay in response causes 28% of candidates to become unresponsive to recruiters (this is from our company's research). It drops to 51% become unresponsive 48 hours later. My experience with being hired at non-FAANG places over a career of more than two decades is that I'm usually through a process and hired within a week. Often, like three days, from first contact to offer. I think my single longest job search was maybe a month, total. Companies that have these weeks- or months-long processes but don't pay FAANG-tier wages to make it worth the wait, I have no idea how the hell they manage to hire anyone at all. You've got to move or I'll already be looking at two other offers before you set the date for your second round or WTF ever.
- indymike 4y ago
  I routinely hire developers in 24 hours from initial contact. It's fun watching them get random recruiter calls two or three weeks later. "I'm not interested, I STARTED my new job three weeks ago. No, I'm not willing to leave for that. Have a nice day." Except the "Have a nice day" part is usually less friendly and polite.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    I'm starting to come around to the TikTok suggestion for those tense closers. "Have the day you deserve."
  - wintogreen74 4y ago
    How can either side get an accurate assessment of the other in such a short time? I was hired by my current employer in less than 2 weeks from initial conversation and it was a bit of a smell that they weren't more thorough. Now I'm a hiring manager and am a little concerned with what I feel are "loose" practices that let too many marginal candidates through because otherwise "it's too hard to source talent". For me a clear understanding of the process steps and how long it will take start to finish is more important than absolute speed. Example: "These are the N phases, we aim to be completed in X days/weeks and you will always know what's next and when it will occur." My last employeer was really good at communicating promptly with those that were not progressing, which is also very important. I think we should all agree that limbo/ghosting is totally unacceptable and these companies (or people) should be called out by name.
    - newaccount74 4y ago
      You read the candidates CV, you ask them what they last worked on, ask them why they want to work at your company, if they are okay with the posted salary range. Maybe have them write a short bit of code to make sure they aren't totally bullshitting you. That takes about one or two hours. Then you think about it, and if you want to hire them send them an offer the next day. First 3 months of the contract is trial period (you can fire them without severance in the trial period if it doesn't work out). Not sure why you need weeks to evaluate a candidate, either they are a fit or not.
      - jvvw 4y ago
        Agree - most of the interviews I have had have been 1-2 hours plus some sort of coding test or similar. I guess if you are trying to recruit people already in a job, you can't get away with that much more than that - unless the job is super-amazing, you can expect people to take a day off work but not more than that. I don't know that longer interviews etc. would actually have told the interviewers massively more about me, perhaps a tiny bit more but not a lot.
- ollien 4y ago
  I have been through a process that took 4 months, from start to end, with almost two months of silence between. The only reason I knew I wasn't rejected was I had a friend on the inside.
  - nsxwolf 4y ago
    I've been on the other side of a hiring process like that. It literally went like this: "Oh shit, didn't we interview so and so for that like 3 weeks ago? Oops! Are they still available?"
  - JackFr 4y ago
    I had a 4 month hiring process - but in fairness they were very transparent. Early on in the process I was warned it would take a long time, and at each step along the way it was made clear what was happening. There was never a feeling of being half ghosted. Wasn’t a bad experience at all.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      I got a new job long before COVID--so mostly in-person process--and it was about a 3 month process. But a lot of it was I was interviewing with people who traveled a lot and getting on calendars even with flexibility on my part (I was very local) just took time.
- vsareto 4y ago
  They hire closer to average talent, who will typically wait because they don't have offers swarming in. The places that hire fast and choose good talent often screen those folks out.
- trap_goes_hot 4y ago
  It would help things immensely if people were more honest. Sometimes it takes more than a week to verify everything on their resume. References often don't get back ASAP. It's not like we won't ever find out that they were lying about their previous job. There are always some applicants who talk a lot, take credit for others' work, but can't actually anything.
- swiftcoder 4y ago
  Even FAANGs can pull this off. Amazon was routinely hiring folks in single-day loop with offer letter the following morning, back when I joined.
  - xpe 4y ago
    Likely you had a very particular set of (in-demand) skills. Right? What year was this?
    - anon7725 4y ago
      Not the person you responded to, but same story for me in 2007. Loop and verbal offer the same day. I was/am not a big get, just a regular engineer.
    - Matthias247 4y ago
      I think it's rather the opposite: If it's a very generic position, to which a lot of applicants could match. In this case big companies often do hiring events, where a lot of applicants are interviewed at the same day, and potentially in the same physical location. Since for those hiring events all decision makers (interviewers, hiring manager, recruiting) are available at the same day, the process can be faster.
- hoosieree 4y ago
  By the time a previous employer got around to making an offer, I had already interviewed and accepted a different job and been working there for 2 months. Still, I took the job for the 1.5x salary increase and better benefits.
- AdrianB1 4y ago
  I work in such a company; it is easy to hire, there are people that FAANG does not hire, other companies don't hire, but somewhere at the bottom someone does. The entire industry that I work in (non-IT, but very large companies) do this, it is the practice for the past ~ 15 years and there is a non-compete agreement on this.
- soneil 4y ago
  I've seen the other side of this and it's not pretty. We had a round with a very indecisive manager who seemed to be apprehensive that an even better candidate might come along next week. We interviewed 15-20 people over the run of 3 months, finally decided on someone and got in touch with them. They'd already taken a role. Tried our second choice. Then our third. Then we just started over. Unless the candidate is looking for you in particular, the better than candidate, the sooner they'll be off the market. The only candidates still waiting 3 months later are the ones everyone else has passed over. (This isn't particularly recent, and wasn't in the US. It's just stuck in my mind as a particularly educational experience.)
alexiaa 4y ago
> if you advertise a job respond to applicants quickly - as in within minutes of the application i mean it's nice to get a response as soon as possible but this seems completely unrealistic... it seems perfectly normal to expect a wait of a few days or weeks to me
- bosie 4y ago
  weeks would drag the application out for months though
- indymike 4y ago
  > i mean it's nice to get a response as soon as possible but this seems completely unrealistic If you run recruiting like it is important, making sure recruiters and hiring managers have the tools and time to talk to candidates quickly is really easy to do. A lot of companies run recruiting like it's a surprise when they have to hire or view it as less important than other functions... and then put lines like "our people are our greatest assets" on their careers page.
- badcppdev 4y ago
  If a customer rang would you pick up the phone right away? Why not treat your potential staff as more important than any of your customers? Which is harder to acquire? Customers or Staff?
  - mdorazio 4y ago
    > Which is harder to acquire? Customers or Staff? Customers. By far.
- pandaman 4y ago
  Most people who respond to job ads are actively searching for jobs, they usually apply to multiple places simultaneously. If the other places responded quickly then, by the time you responded in a few days, the applicant could be far along the interviewing with several others and might not be considering your vacancy any more or prioritize it after everything else already in the pipeline. If you responded in a few weeks, the applicant might already have taken an offer.
Octoth0rpe 4y ago
> the truth is that unemployment did not go up in November. Do you have a source on this that breaks out unemployment by sector? 100k tech sector layoffs could be easily overshadowed by holiday season retail hiring.
- indymike 4y ago
  You can dive through US DOL JOLTS report if you want to understand this. Big tech did layoffs. IT departments still need people.
  - twelve40 4y ago
    you'd think it's on the person making the statement about IT hiring numbers to do the diving.
    - tinco 4y ago
      He did the diving, he told you the statement and the properties of it and he told you where he gets his data.
    - mywittyname 4y ago
      It's a pain to link to the BLS data, since you have to generate a report which needs POST data in order to display properly. I went and found the data and it maps with what indymike is saying. Layoffs are up, but not abnormally so (in line with previous years), while hiring is down compared to last year, it remains well above pre-2020 figure. Overall, it looks like the IT job market is the best its ever been by a 20% margin, aside from 2021, which was slightly better than this year.
  - hosh 4y ago
    While both IT and engineering jobs in Big Tech involve computer technology, IT tends to be a cost center while Big Tech’s engineering groups are profit centers. (Or supposed to be). It would be interesting to compare the unemployment numbers to comp.
- Retric 4y ago
godelski 4y ago
It's kinda nice to hear that things that sound obvious actually are. All these seem like they can be summed up with: treat your potential hire like you'd want to be treated when you're looking for a job. Would it be naive to assume that similar rules apply for retaining workers?
bin_bash 4y ago
> A single day of delay in response causes 28% of candidates to become unresponsive to recruiters (this is from our company's research). It drops to 51% become unresponsive 48 hours later. I've noticed my interest in a job tends to drop consistently the longer it takes for a response. This isn't surprising at all. I don't think it's because we're fickle, it's more that right when you apply you can picture what it might be like to start working for the company and start to identify with that future. As the days drag on, that picture seems less and less likely to happen.
- thwayunion 4y ago
  More importantly, as I remind my mentees, it's is an excellent signal for true interest. Nothing burns more than getting your hopes up and investing hours/days into a job interview process only to find out you were not the preferred candidate. This stings a bit if you don't get the job, becomes seriously annoying when it surfaces during compensation negotiation, and can be disastrous for your career and personal life if it surfaces post-hiring.
- next_xibalba 4y ago
  This, to me, is a really good signal of how well run a company is. After all, a company is merely a collection of people on whom its outcomes are entirely dependent. Thus, the single most important function a company can perform is hiring. If a company fails to recognize this or just does it incompetently, its probably a crappy company. Thus, slow responses == crappy company.
  - ido 4y ago
    I would postulate the single most important thing a company can do is make money. Hiring is also important though.
    - next_xibalba 4y ago
      Making money is a downstream output of the activities of your people. So, if making money is your goal, the most important thing you can do to reach your goal is to hire the right people.
timwaagh 4y ago
This is really besides the point and in this context seems to argue it would be fine to break the law if it were beneficial, it just happens that it's not the case.
Simon_O_Rourke 4y ago
Thanks for posting those recruiting stats, they certainly seem to hold true from what I've seen.
robomartin 4y ago
> If you advertise a job respond to applicants quickly A friend of mine is superbly qualified for a job posted by Apple. She applied for this job expecting a reasonably quick reply. What I mean by "superbly qualified" is that she is a recognized expert in the domain, has conducted seminars attended by hundreds of engineers and business people and, back in the day, was actually invited by Steve Jobs to come to Cupertino and help Apple engineers understand issues related to this product category. Her application, last I checked, has gone without response for somewhere around 30 to 45 days. This has caused her to have lost her interest to work for Apple. She is now considering offers from competitors. Ghosting can happen in many forms. Why is it that tech companies don't seem to understand how important is is to treat people with respect --customers, suppliers, candidates and employees. Once someone forms an opinion about you or your company it takes a thousand times more energy and effort to change it.
- xyzelement 4y ago
  I feel for your friend but this sounds naive. Public job postings get hundreds or thousands of applications, most of which are terrible and need to be filtered out. Expecting an immediate response on one is not reasonable. If your friend is such an industry insider, it's surprising she didn't have a network that could short circuit this process for her. In general, my experience that if you are cold-applying for a job, you are very likely to get lost in a pile of trash. The recruiting experience is much better if the company finds out about you on their own and goes after you. Having an internal referral is a form of that.
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    Expecting a response to your job application in less than a month sounds naive?
    - sbrother 4y ago
      Expecting any response to dropping your resume into a online form sounds naive IMO. Does anyone actually get jobs this way?
baby 4y ago
no opinion about these laws but: > * Showing your salary range as long as it is at market wage or higher delivers 14% more applicants. It is a good idea to show salary on job ads. might not be what you want. You might want the best engineers who you will have to make exceptions for in their TC
- grepLeigh 4y ago
  My unsolicited advice (for founders) is to hire the best people you can afford. I've seen startups blow 2-3 headcount worth of budget to secure a FAANG engineer, only to realize that engineer needed an SRE to deploy their code, a tools engineer to setup their CI/CD, etc. The founders were so excited to add "FAANG engineer" to their Series A deck. Firing this engineer was tough because the startup went to the board to get approval for the salary + equity offer letter. To make matters worse, this engineer was kept on for 6+ months without shipping anything ... because firing would've gone into the next board and investor update.
  - mywittyname 4y ago
    A CEO eventually has to develop the courage to deliver bad news to the board.
    - tomhallett 4y ago
      100% agreed, but for the CEO's who are making the above mistake, if they have other bad news to deliver to the board (low revenues, etc), then they might be afraid to deliver yet another piece of bad news on the hiring side.
      - grepLeigh 4y ago
        Yep, and a mis-hire is one of the easiest problems to push off. You can talk yourself into believing the first project wasn't a good fit, your management skills aren't good so it's your fault, and so on. All of those things might even be true! But doesn't change the reality that you're burning 2-3 engineers of runway on 1 engineer with no valuable outputs.
YetAnotherNick 4y ago
> Showing your salary range as long as it is at market wage or higher delivers 14% more applicants. It is a good idea to show salary on job ads. This is one number, which even if it is true doesn’t matter. There are so many easy way to increase the number of applicants like posting it in linkedin, decreasing number of years of experience in posting(which are more often than not, not a hard limit for job) etc. They want to decrease the applicants if at all while keeping the number of new hires same.
warrenm 4y ago
>* If you advertise a job respond to applicants quickly - as in within minutes of the application. A single day of delay in response causes 28% of candidates to become unresponsive to recruiters (this is from our company's research). It drops to 51% become unresponsive 48 hours later. Related: apply to jobs during [earlyish] business hours whenever possible - you're a lot more likely to hear back in a timely manner Don't apply at 9pm on Friday night if you can avoid it

yamtaddle 4y ago

> * If you advertise a job respond to applicants quickly - as in within minutes of the application. A single day of delay in response causes 28% of candidates to become unresponsive to recruiters (this is from our company's research). It drops to 51% become unresponsive 48 hours later. My experience with being hired at non-FAANG places over a career of more than two decades is that I'm usually through a process and hired within a week. Often, like three days, from first contact to offer. I think my single longest job search was maybe a month, total. Companies that have these weeks- or months-long processes but don't pay FAANG-tier wages to make it worth the wait, I have no idea how the hell they manage to hire anyone at all. You've got to move or I'll already be looking at two other offers before you set the date for your second round or WTF ever.

indymike 4y ago
I routinely hire developers in 24 hours from initial contact. It's fun watching them get random recruiter calls two or three weeks later. "I'm not interested, I STARTED my new job three weeks ago. No, I'm not willing to leave for that. Have a nice day." Except the "Have a nice day" part is usually less friendly and polite.
- falcolas 4y ago
  I'm starting to come around to the TikTok suggestion for those tense closers. "Have the day you deserve."
- wintogreen74 4y ago
  How can either side get an accurate assessment of the other in such a short time? I was hired by my current employer in less than 2 weeks from initial conversation and it was a bit of a smell that they weren't more thorough. Now I'm a hiring manager and am a little concerned with what I feel are "loose" practices that let too many marginal candidates through because otherwise "it's too hard to source talent". For me a clear understanding of the process steps and how long it will take start to finish is more important than absolute speed. Example: "These are the N phases, we aim to be completed in X days/weeks and you will always know what's next and when it will occur." My last employeer was really good at communicating promptly with those that were not progressing, which is also very important. I think we should all agree that limbo/ghosting is totally unacceptable and these companies (or people) should be called out by name.
  - newaccount74 4y ago
    You read the candidates CV, you ask them what they last worked on, ask them why they want to work at your company, if they are okay with the posted salary range. Maybe have them write a short bit of code to make sure they aren't totally bullshitting you. That takes about one or two hours. Then you think about it, and if you want to hire them send them an offer the next day. First 3 months of the contract is trial period (you can fire them without severance in the trial period if it doesn't work out). Not sure why you need weeks to evaluate a candidate, either they are a fit or not.
    - jvvw 4y ago
      Agree - most of the interviews I have had have been 1-2 hours plus some sort of coding test or similar. I guess if you are trying to recruit people already in a job, you can't get away with that much more than that - unless the job is super-amazing, you can expect people to take a day off work but not more than that. I don't know that longer interviews etc. would actually have told the interviewers massively more about me, perhaps a tiny bit more but not a lot.
ollien 4y ago
I have been through a process that took 4 months, from start to end, with almost two months of silence between. The only reason I knew I wasn't rejected was I had a friend on the inside.
- nsxwolf 4y ago
  I've been on the other side of a hiring process like that. It literally went like this: "Oh shit, didn't we interview so and so for that like 3 weeks ago? Oops! Are they still available?"
- JackFr 4y ago
  I had a 4 month hiring process - but in fairness they were very transparent. Early on in the process I was warned it would take a long time, and at each step along the way it was made clear what was happening. There was never a feeling of being half ghosted. Wasn’t a bad experience at all.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    I got a new job long before COVID--so mostly in-person process--and it was about a 3 month process. But a lot of it was I was interviewing with people who traveled a lot and getting on calendars even with flexibility on my part (I was very local) just took time.
vsareto 4y ago
They hire closer to average talent, who will typically wait because they don't have offers swarming in. The places that hire fast and choose good talent often screen those folks out.
trap_goes_hot 4y ago
It would help things immensely if people were more honest. Sometimes it takes more than a week to verify everything on their resume. References often don't get back ASAP. It's not like we won't ever find out that they were lying about their previous job. There are always some applicants who talk a lot, take credit for others' work, but can't actually anything.
swiftcoder 4y ago
Even FAANGs can pull this off. Amazon was routinely hiring folks in single-day loop with offer letter the following morning, back when I joined.
- xpe 4y ago
  Likely you had a very particular set of (in-demand) skills. Right? What year was this?
  - anon7725 4y ago
    Not the person you responded to, but same story for me in 2007. Loop and verbal offer the same day. I was/am not a big get, just a regular engineer.
  - Matthias247 4y ago
    I think it's rather the opposite: If it's a very generic position, to which a lot of applicants could match. In this case big companies often do hiring events, where a lot of applicants are interviewed at the same day, and potentially in the same physical location. Since for those hiring events all decision makers (interviewers, hiring manager, recruiting) are available at the same day, the process can be faster.
hoosieree 4y ago
By the time a previous employer got around to making an offer, I had already interviewed and accepted a different job and been working there for 2 months. Still, I took the job for the 1.5x salary increase and better benefits.
AdrianB1 4y ago
I work in such a company; it is easy to hire, there are people that FAANG does not hire, other companies don't hire, but somewhere at the bottom someone does. The entire industry that I work in (non-IT, but very large companies) do this, it is the practice for the past ~ 15 years and there is a non-compete agreement on this.
soneil 4y ago
I've seen the other side of this and it's not pretty. We had a round with a very indecisive manager who seemed to be apprehensive that an even better candidate might come along next week. We interviewed 15-20 people over the run of 3 months, finally decided on someone and got in touch with them. They'd already taken a role. Tried our second choice. Then our third. Then we just started over. Unless the candidate is looking for you in particular, the better than candidate, the sooner they'll be off the market. The only candidates still waiting 3 months later are the ones everyone else has passed over. (This isn't particularly recent, and wasn't in the US. It's just stuck in my mind as a particularly educational experience.)

alexiaa 4y ago

> if you advertise a job respond to applicants quickly - as in within minutes of the application i mean it's nice to get a response as soon as possible but this seems completely unrealistic... it seems perfectly normal to expect a wait of a few days or weeks to me

bosie 4y ago
weeks would drag the application out for months though
indymike 4y ago
> i mean it's nice to get a response as soon as possible but this seems completely unrealistic If you run recruiting like it is important, making sure recruiters and hiring managers have the tools and time to talk to candidates quickly is really easy to do. A lot of companies run recruiting like it's a surprise when they have to hire or view it as less important than other functions... and then put lines like "our people are our greatest assets" on their careers page.
badcppdev 4y ago
If a customer rang would you pick up the phone right away? Why not treat your potential staff as more important than any of your customers? Which is harder to acquire? Customers or Staff?
- mdorazio 4y ago
  > Which is harder to acquire? Customers or Staff? Customers. By far.
pandaman 4y ago
Most people who respond to job ads are actively searching for jobs, they usually apply to multiple places simultaneously. If the other places responded quickly then, by the time you responded in a few days, the applicant could be far along the interviewing with several others and might not be considering your vacancy any more or prioritize it after everything else already in the pipeline. If you responded in a few weeks, the applicant might already have taken an offer.

Octoth0rpe 4y ago

> the truth is that unemployment did not go up in November. Do you have a source on this that breaks out unemployment by sector? 100k tech sector layoffs could be easily overshadowed by holiday season retail hiring.

indymike 4y ago
You can dive through US DOL JOLTS report if you want to understand this. Big tech did layoffs. IT departments still need people.
- twelve40 4y ago
  you'd think it's on the person making the statement about IT hiring numbers to do the diving.
  - tinco 4y ago
    He did the diving, he told you the statement and the properties of it and he told you where he gets his data.
  - mywittyname 4y ago
    It's a pain to link to the BLS data, since you have to generate a report which needs POST data in order to display properly. I went and found the data and it maps with what indymike is saying. Layoffs are up, but not abnormally so (in line with previous years), while hiring is down compared to last year, it remains well above pre-2020 figure. Overall, it looks like the IT job market is the best its ever been by a 20% margin, aside from 2021, which was slightly better than this year.
- hosh 4y ago
  While both IT and engineering jobs in Big Tech involve computer technology, IT tends to be a cost center while Big Tech’s engineering groups are profit centers. (Or supposed to be). It would be interesting to compare the unemployment numbers to comp.
Retric 4y ago

godelski 4y ago

It's kinda nice to hear that things that sound obvious actually are. All these seem like they can be summed up with: treat your potential hire like you'd want to be treated when you're looking for a job. Would it be naive to assume that similar rules apply for retaining workers?

bin_bash 4y ago

> A single day of delay in response causes 28% of candidates to become unresponsive to recruiters (this is from our company's research). It drops to 51% become unresponsive 48 hours later. I've noticed my interest in a job tends to drop consistently the longer it takes for a response. This isn't surprising at all. I don't think it's because we're fickle, it's more that right when you apply you can picture what it might be like to start working for the company and start to identify with that future. As the days drag on, that picture seems less and less likely to happen.

thwayunion 4y ago
More importantly, as I remind my mentees, it's is an excellent signal for true interest. Nothing burns more than getting your hopes up and investing hours/days into a job interview process only to find out you were not the preferred candidate. This stings a bit if you don't get the job, becomes seriously annoying when it surfaces during compensation negotiation, and can be disastrous for your career and personal life if it surfaces post-hiring.
next_xibalba 4y ago
This, to me, is a really good signal of how well run a company is. After all, a company is merely a collection of people on whom its outcomes are entirely dependent. Thus, the single most important function a company can perform is hiring. If a company fails to recognize this or just does it incompetently, its probably a crappy company. Thus, slow responses == crappy company.
- ido 4y ago
  I would postulate the single most important thing a company can do is make money. Hiring is also important though.
  - next_xibalba 4y ago
    Making money is a downstream output of the activities of your people. So, if making money is your goal, the most important thing you can do to reach your goal is to hire the right people.

timwaagh 4y ago

This is really besides the point and in this context seems to argue it would be fine to break the law if it were beneficial, it just happens that it's not the case.

Simon_O_Rourke 4y ago

Thanks for posting those recruiting stats, they certainly seem to hold true from what I've seen.

robomartin 4y ago

> If you advertise a job respond to applicants quickly A friend of mine is superbly qualified for a job posted by Apple. She applied for this job expecting a reasonably quick reply. What I mean by "superbly qualified" is that she is a recognized expert in the domain, has conducted seminars attended by hundreds of engineers and business people and, back in the day, was actually invited by Steve Jobs to come to Cupertino and help Apple engineers understand issues related to this product category. Her application, last I checked, has gone without response for somewhere around 30 to 45 days. This has caused her to have lost her interest to work for Apple. She is now considering offers from competitors. Ghosting can happen in many forms. Why is it that tech companies don't seem to understand how important is is to treat people with respect --customers, suppliers, candidates and employees. Once someone forms an opinion about you or your company it takes a thousand times more energy and effort to change it.

xyzelement 4y ago
I feel for your friend but this sounds naive. Public job postings get hundreds or thousands of applications, most of which are terrible and need to be filtered out. Expecting an immediate response on one is not reasonable. If your friend is such an industry insider, it's surprising she didn't have a network that could short circuit this process for her. In general, my experience that if you are cold-applying for a job, you are very likely to get lost in a pile of trash. The recruiting experience is much better if the company finds out about you on their own and goes after you. Having an internal referral is a form of that.
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  Expecting a response to your job application in less than a month sounds naive?
  - sbrother 4y ago
    Expecting any response to dropping your resume into a online form sounds naive IMO. Does anyone actually get jobs this way?

baby 4y ago

no opinion about these laws but: > * Showing your salary range as long as it is at market wage or higher delivers 14% more applicants. It is a good idea to show salary on job ads. might not be what you want. You might want the best engineers who you will have to make exceptions for in their TC

grepLeigh 4y ago
My unsolicited advice (for founders) is to hire the best people you can afford. I've seen startups blow 2-3 headcount worth of budget to secure a FAANG engineer, only to realize that engineer needed an SRE to deploy their code, a tools engineer to setup their CI/CD, etc. The founders were so excited to add "FAANG engineer" to their Series A deck. Firing this engineer was tough because the startup went to the board to get approval for the salary + equity offer letter. To make matters worse, this engineer was kept on for 6+ months without shipping anything ... because firing would've gone into the next board and investor update.
- mywittyname 4y ago
  A CEO eventually has to develop the courage to deliver bad news to the board.
  - tomhallett 4y ago
    100% agreed, but for the CEO's who are making the above mistake, if they have other bad news to deliver to the board (low revenues, etc), then they might be afraid to deliver yet another piece of bad news on the hiring side.
    - grepLeigh 4y ago
      Yep, and a mis-hire is one of the easiest problems to push off. You can talk yourself into believing the first project wasn't a good fit, your management skills aren't good so it's your fault, and so on. All of those things might even be true! But doesn't change the reality that you're burning 2-3 engineers of runway on 1 engineer with no valuable outputs.

YetAnotherNick 4y ago

> Showing your salary range as long as it is at market wage or higher delivers 14% more applicants. It is a good idea to show salary on job ads. This is one number, which even if it is true doesn’t matter. There are so many easy way to increase the number of applicants like posting it in linkedin, decreasing number of years of experience in posting(which are more often than not, not a hard limit for job) etc. They want to decrease the applicants if at all while keeping the number of new hires same.

warrenm 4y ago