6 ms·

You're describing basically every ATS (applicant tracking system). The problem is that those are all internal-facing, so there's no incentive to make your life

You're describing basically every ATS (applicant tracking system). The problem is that those are all internal-facing, so there's no incentive to make your life easier as a candidate. I'm trying to tackle this with https://rolepad.com https://rolepad.com, a job application tracking system that can be connected to an employer portal and provide greater transparency and just make the whole candidate experience much better (the employer part is still under development though).

IMTDb 3y ago
> so there's no incentive to make your life easier as a candidate Especially because lowering the barrier usually means getting more low effort application. People either put a lot of effort on few applications and invest significant amount of time in each one hoping to increase the chance they get picked up; or they put a lot of effort on reaching out as much as possible, knowing they have a very small chance on each application but playing on volume. Most recruiters are only interested in the first category of candidates. Having a long initial process is a feature. The goal is that the second category considers that given their chance of getting picked up, it's not worth filling the form.
- indymike 3y ago
  > Having a long initial process is a feature. Reality is: 1. Screening tools (background check, skills analysis and testing) are really good. There's really no reason to put someone through a six-week gauntlet just to find out if they can do the job. 2. Interviews are really a tool for seeing if coworkers and managers get along with the candidate, and the candidate gets along with their future coworkers and managers. In many companies interview == where manager has discretion to hire the people they want. Lots of interviews usually means lots of managers who all want to put their stamp on the hire. 3. Being good at getting hired is a function of experience getting hired. The skills needed to be a good candidate do not align with the skills needed to be a good worker in most roles.
  - ska 3y ago
    In my experience: (1) just isn't true. It's at best a mixed bag. (2) is somewhat true. Team fit is pretty hard to figure out without interactions, and agree sometimes managers just want to get their oar in. (3) is oversimplification. There are definitely people who are better a getting hired than doing the job, and they are hard to weed out early in their career. If you aren't able to identify good candidates in front of you though (e.g. the FN, not FP) there are problems in your process, not the candidates.
    - indymike 3y ago
      1. I'm pretty sure that background checks work beyond doubt. I'm pretty sure that skills tests work beyond doubt. I'm less confident in AI resume/profile analysis and skills matching tools - both are getting better. 3. Agree, it's simplified, but for most companies, field and "hiring" managers are barely able to do an effective interview, let alone smoke out someone lacking interview skills from one lacking communication skills.
      - ska 3y ago
        Agree both background checks and skill tests can work very well in an ideal form, but it's expensive (in time, mostly). As practised, they are very much a mixed bag. The latter is a problem past early career stuff anyway, as you aren't going to learn much in a couple hours.
scarface_74 3y ago
I found LinkedIn’s Easy Apply to be remarkably easy to spam a hundred or so applications in a week and it lets you see if your application has been viewed or resume downloaded. Unfortunately hundreds of other people found it just as easy. This is why I never blindly submit my resume to an ATS. I only did it this time because I was unemployed (for two weeks) and had nothing better to do. The five opportunities that led to interviews were still based on good old fashion networking 1. A full time offer (didn’t accept) and a side contract (did accept) based on referrals from former managers 2. Two interviews based on reaching out to the internal recruiter for positions I was objectively the best person on the market for - I was a major contributor to an open source official “AWS Solution” they were implementing and modifying. I accepted an offer. 3. Responding to a recruiter he reached out to me. There was some miscommunication about the role. The team thought the client wanted someone “local” to the US since their whole team was in India. They wanted someone local to the city - I declined. Out of the 100 applications I randomly spammed, most didn’t get around to even looking at my application and only four actually downloaded my resume.

IMTDb 3y ago

> so there's no incentive to make your life easier as a candidate Especially because lowering the barrier usually means getting more low effort application. People either put a lot of effort on few applications and invest significant amount of time in each one hoping to increase the chance they get picked up; or they put a lot of effort on reaching out as much as possible, knowing they have a very small chance on each application but playing on volume. Most recruiters are only interested in the first category of candidates. Having a long initial process is a feature. The goal is that the second category considers that given their chance of getting picked up, it's not worth filling the form.

indymike 3y ago
> Having a long initial process is a feature. Reality is: 1. Screening tools (background check, skills analysis and testing) are really good. There's really no reason to put someone through a six-week gauntlet just to find out if they can do the job. 2. Interviews are really a tool for seeing if coworkers and managers get along with the candidate, and the candidate gets along with their future coworkers and managers. In many companies interview == where manager has discretion to hire the people they want. Lots of interviews usually means lots of managers who all want to put their stamp on the hire. 3. Being good at getting hired is a function of experience getting hired. The skills needed to be a good candidate do not align with the skills needed to be a good worker in most roles.
- ska 3y ago
  In my experience: (1) just isn't true. It's at best a mixed bag. (2) is somewhat true. Team fit is pretty hard to figure out without interactions, and agree sometimes managers just want to get their oar in. (3) is oversimplification. There are definitely people who are better a getting hired than doing the job, and they are hard to weed out early in their career. If you aren't able to identify good candidates in front of you though (e.g. the FN, not FP) there are problems in your process, not the candidates.
  - indymike 3y ago
    1. I'm pretty sure that background checks work beyond doubt. I'm pretty sure that skills tests work beyond doubt. I'm less confident in AI resume/profile analysis and skills matching tools - both are getting better. 3. Agree, it's simplified, but for most companies, field and "hiring" managers are barely able to do an effective interview, let alone smoke out someone lacking interview skills from one lacking communication skills.
    - ska 3y ago
      Agree both background checks and skill tests can work very well in an ideal form, but it's expensive (in time, mostly). As practised, they are very much a mixed bag. The latter is a problem past early career stuff anyway, as you aren't going to learn much in a couple hours.

scarface_74 3y ago

I found LinkedIn’s Easy Apply to be remarkably easy to spam a hundred or so applications in a week and it lets you see if your application has been viewed or resume downloaded. Unfortunately hundreds of other people found it just as easy. This is why I never blindly submit my resume to an ATS. I only did it this time because I was unemployed (for two weeks) and had nothing better to do. The five opportunities that led to interviews were still based on good old fashion networking 1. A full time offer (didn’t accept) and a side contract (did accept) based on referrals from former managers 2. Two interviews based on reaching out to the internal recruiter for positions I was objectively the best person on the market for - I was a major contributor to an open source official “AWS Solution” they were implementing and modifying. I accepted an offer. 3. Responding to a recruiter he reached out to me. There was some miscommunication about the role. The team thought the client wanted someone “local” to the US since their whole team was in India. They wanted someone local to the city - I declined. Out of the 100 applications I randomly spammed, most didn’t get around to even looking at my application and only four actually downloaded my resume.