4 ms·
From the hiring side: I would like good candidates to use tooling to apply to jobs. Then I’m more likely to get an application from you. But the applicant bette
by joshuanapoli 2y ago
From the hiring side: I would like good candidates to use tooling to apply to jobs. Then I’m more likely to get an application from you. But the applicant better apply some quality control to their tooling. It’s a turn-off to get a LinkedIn “I’m excited about your job opening” message where the content isn’t correctly substituted.
However, I think that what is actually happening is that tooling is more often used by more desperate candidates.
- wiz21c 2y agoWhen you write tooling, do you mean "please use our HR platform to enter your resume", and then one has to enter for the 123rd time his whole career with every single date ? If it's that, that's not tooling, that's "if he/she really wants the job, then he'll do it anyway". No thx.
- joshuanapoli 2y agoI don't think that candidates should have to do a lot of pointless data-entry to apply. If the candidate has tooling to increase their reach, for a given level of time invested, all the better. I'd rather that they have a minimum of personal investment to get into the top of the hiring funnel. If we start an interview process, then that will require increasing time and energy investment from both sides as it gets closer to hiring (and continuing to ramp up, to a point, post hiring).
- yownie 2y agoSo.....that's a "yes" then.
- OptionOfT 2y agoThe problem is that it is massively skewed in favor of the company hiring. First of all you need to fight through the annoying drop downs of Workday (which have 0 accessibility). Then you need to write a cover letter, because for some reason that's mandatory a lot of times. Then you get an email with a CodeSignals / LeetCode pre-interview. So all in all I'm in it for about 1 hour already before I am even considered as part of the pile.