3 ms·
Seems like a good thing. If you can fire off 100 resumes at no cost, while a company has to spend time reading each one and filtering out the junk, doesn't that
by emotta 15y ago
Seems like a good thing. If you can fire off 100 resumes at no cost, while a company has to spend time reading each one and filtering out the junk, doesn't that seem asymmetrical? Large companies often have screening tests, or let hr people phone-screen candidates before moving on, but smaller companies don't have the resources.
If you want the job, you'll put in the time. In the process you'll also learn about he skills and culture the company expects, and they'll also be trying to present themselves as an interesting place to work.
It's the same dance, but now you need to be involved from the start.
- sliverstorm 15y agoYes, but what if you still have to fire off 100 applications at 3hrs apiece? Effectively equivalent to 2.5 months of working full-time, and you may not even get an interview. It makes sense for the company to invest more in finding the employee than the employee invests to find the company; the company has more to gain.
- emotta 15y agoHow much time did you spend on your college applications? Why should applying for a good job be easier? Say it takes 3 hrs to do the application (probably not, but I haven't done one). The resulting candidate pool will be smaller, and consist of more dedicated applicants, who aren't just firing off blanks. I think both the employer and the applicant might get a higher "hit ratio". If a recruiter has to sift through thousands of resumes, then good talent gets missed, bad talent gets interviews, and 2.5 months later you'll still be unemployed. Maybe companies could still accept resumes and "regular applications" in addition to the HireArt channel. I think applicants going the HireArt route would be more likely to get consideration/interviews.
- sliverstorm 15y agoYes, that's the counter-argument; that the 3hr application process will in itself filter the pool, and improve match rates, thus keeping effort-to-match rates reasonable. It will have to be seen if it pays off. One big problem you might face- this would make it even harder for HR to do a passable job, requiring even more time from managers within the company.
- tsunamifury 15y agoI think you're right, the hire art method may filter out people who are just fishing and help a person looking to hire someone to find people who are focused on doing the work to make it. This is far more fair for workers in a non-recession than in a recession though -- where desperation will drive large numbers of workers to put in the extra time to get the job.