5 ms·

Can anyone else verify the '2 out of 600 applicants could actually do the job' statement. I've heard something like 1 in 100 but I just can't believe numbers li

Can anyone else verify the '2 out of 600 applicants could actually do the job' statement. I've heard something like 1 in 100 but I just can't believe numbers like these.

sokoloff 13y ago
Sadly, it's more true than you can probably imagine. Realize though, that the pool of people actively applying to jobs is, on average, FAR worse than the total population. Even companies who are pretty bad at hiring can make some kind of selection for quality, and great engineers get fired way less than terrible engineers, so in theory, the very worst engineers in the world would continually apply for jobs and never be hired, or would be quickly fired. My experience suggests that it's very rare to get a superstar from any passive method (that finds active job seekers). That pool is just to dilute with talent. To get the strong candidates, you have to be active (to have a shot at the passive candidates) or extremely lucky. It's no surprise to find only 1 in 100 of unemployed engineers are truly good. If you just post openings, you're unlikely to interview even a representative sample of the population, let alone an above-average sample.
- kunil 13y ago
  If that is true, I can relate the HR or hiring people. It must be bad when majority of applicants are not suitable to job at all. ~2 months ago I started searching for a new job. I only applied that actually suits to me and I am capable. I only applied 3 places and all interviewed me, in the end I got 2 offers (I am starting next week!). I guess that is just me.
  - sokoloff 13y ago
    That's not surprising to me (that you got offers from 2 of 3). Congrats on the new role, and have confidence that if it turns out not to be to your liking, that you have options. You're likely to go 2-for-3 in your next job search as well; it probably wasn't random/dumb luck; you're a bigger/better fish in that pond than you probably think...
  - busterarm 13y ago
    I have the same experience as you. I really cherry pick what jobs I apply for and I almost always get an interview and an offer. There's only two times to my memory that I didn't get an offer and one was because I was lied to about what job I was applying for. I really can't understand people who just blast their resume out for every job they're not qualified for.
- busterarm 13y ago
  > My experience suggests that it's very rare to get a superstar from any passive method (that finds active job seekers). That pool is just to dilute with talent. To get the strong candidates, you have to be active (to have a shot at the passive candidates) or extremely lucky. It's a two-part problem though. Some companies don't have a management structure that allows superstars to thrive. Large companies that need to passively hire active job seekers often don't give any kind of ownership over your own work. Responsibility and accountability, I find, are really key to both nurturing high-performing employees and weeding out the ones that try to hide. Still other companies have a culture where being a superstar paints a target on your back. Offices are filled with petty bullshit.
moron4hire 13y ago
Well, it's an anecdote from several years ago of which I have only rough numbers. The "2 people who were good" and the "67% fired" numbers are correct, for one particular project we had hired 6 people and eventually fired 4 of them over the course of two years. I'm guessing at 50% acceptance rate for the offer (it probably wasn't that low, but it wasn't better than 75% either), and the two 10% numbers to get to 1% applicant acceptance rate. It's a rough guess to give an idea of the magnitude of things, and as such it's not an order of magnitude off.
ams6110 13y ago
It's likely close to true. The reason: all the good people already have jobs.
busterarm 13y ago
We have a pre-employment screening test for all employees at my company that I do the scoring on. About 1 in 30 even gets passed on to HR to look at their resume. We get about 400-500 applicants a day (I don't personally look at all of them; a handful of us have this responsibility). Most people cheat, don't read the instructions or just give plain crap answers. A pretty significant number don't even try to get good answers - I wonder if they just have to show an attempt for unemployment money. We struggle to get even 2 strong answers out of all 5 questions. 2 strong answers will basically guarantee an interview. 1 - 1 1/2 answers will get passed on to HR with a "maybe". Of those that interview, I think about 1 in 15 gets hired into our training group. Usually about 1/5-1/3 of these realize that they can't do the job in training and stop showing up or they get recommended no-hire. Usually by this time HR tells us it's too late to fire them but occasionally it will happen (we had a hairdresser who was coached by a very senior employee through the hiring process. she had absolutely no technical ability whatsoever and was fired). Our turnover rate for people in their first two weeks is high. I'm not going to lie, we're a very difficult company to work for and we don't have the best conditions for our employees (I can't change that). Ultimately though, we have a staff of about 600 all of whom I interact with on a regular basis. I get about 1500-2200 tickets escalated to me personally each month, so I do deal with almost everyone. I could say that at present maybe 10 people can completely do their job effectively and maybe another 50 who can do most of it and have areas where they're significantly weak. The people who are very effective eventually get promoted to my team though. For our newest hires, we've given up on recruiting technical skill completely and hire based on phone skills and business sense. The hope is that they can be trained to be effective. Our training department sucks and I have absolutely no hope for this plan to work, but we need butts in seats to meet SLA on our new contracts. OP's numbers are very believable.
- sokoloff 13y ago
  You're averaging a ticket escalation to you every 5 working minutes, and you have another job to do on top of those escalations?! I can believe you about the not the best conditions for your employees bit, yourself included...
  - 13y ago

Can anyone else verify the '2 out of 600 applicants could actually do the job' statement. I've heard something like 1 in 100 but I just can't believe numbers like these.

sokoloff 13y ago

Sadly, it's more true than you can probably imagine. Realize though, that the pool of people actively applying to jobs is, on average, FAR worse than the total population. Even companies who are pretty bad at hiring can make some kind of selection for quality, and great engineers get fired way less than terrible engineers, so in theory, the very worst engineers in the world would continually apply for jobs and never be hired, or would be quickly fired. My experience suggests that it's very rare to get a superstar from any passive method (that finds active job seekers). That pool is just to dilute with talent. To get the strong candidates, you have to be active (to have a shot at the passive candidates) or extremely lucky. It's no surprise to find only 1 in 100 of unemployed engineers are truly good. If you just post openings, you're unlikely to interview even a representative sample of the population, let alone an above-average sample.

kunil 13y ago
If that is true, I can relate the HR or hiring people. It must be bad when majority of applicants are not suitable to job at all. ~2 months ago I started searching for a new job. I only applied that actually suits to me and I am capable. I only applied 3 places and all interviewed me, in the end I got 2 offers (I am starting next week!). I guess that is just me.
- sokoloff 13y ago
  That's not surprising to me (that you got offers from 2 of 3). Congrats on the new role, and have confidence that if it turns out not to be to your liking, that you have options. You're likely to go 2-for-3 in your next job search as well; it probably wasn't random/dumb luck; you're a bigger/better fish in that pond than you probably think...
- busterarm 13y ago
  I have the same experience as you. I really cherry pick what jobs I apply for and I almost always get an interview and an offer. There's only two times to my memory that I didn't get an offer and one was because I was lied to about what job I was applying for. I really can't understand people who just blast their resume out for every job they're not qualified for.
busterarm 13y ago
> My experience suggests that it's very rare to get a superstar from any passive method (that finds active job seekers). That pool is just to dilute with talent. To get the strong candidates, you have to be active (to have a shot at the passive candidates) or extremely lucky. It's a two-part problem though. Some companies don't have a management structure that allows superstars to thrive. Large companies that need to passively hire active job seekers often don't give any kind of ownership over your own work. Responsibility and accountability, I find, are really key to both nurturing high-performing employees and weeding out the ones that try to hide. Still other companies have a culture where being a superstar paints a target on your back. Offices are filled with petty bullshit.

moron4hire 13y ago

Well, it's an anecdote from several years ago of which I have only rough numbers. The "2 people who were good" and the "67% fired" numbers are correct, for one particular project we had hired 6 people and eventually fired 4 of them over the course of two years. I'm guessing at 50% acceptance rate for the offer (it probably wasn't that low, but it wasn't better than 75% either), and the two 10% numbers to get to 1% applicant acceptance rate. It's a rough guess to give an idea of the magnitude of things, and as such it's not an order of magnitude off.

ams6110 13y ago

It's likely close to true. The reason: all the good people already have jobs.

busterarm 13y ago

We have a pre-employment screening test for all employees at my company that I do the scoring on. About 1 in 30 even gets passed on to HR to look at their resume. We get about 400-500 applicants a day (I don't personally look at all of them; a handful of us have this responsibility). Most people cheat, don't read the instructions or just give plain crap answers. A pretty significant number don't even try to get good answers - I wonder if they just have to show an attempt for unemployment money. We struggle to get even 2 strong answers out of all 5 questions. 2 strong answers will basically guarantee an interview. 1 - 1 1/2 answers will get passed on to HR with a "maybe". Of those that interview, I think about 1 in 15 gets hired into our training group. Usually about 1/5-1/3 of these realize that they can't do the job in training and stop showing up or they get recommended no-hire. Usually by this time HR tells us it's too late to fire them but occasionally it will happen (we had a hairdresser who was coached by a very senior employee through the hiring process. she had absolutely no technical ability whatsoever and was fired). Our turnover rate for people in their first two weeks is high. I'm not going to lie, we're a very difficult company to work for and we don't have the best conditions for our employees (I can't change that). Ultimately though, we have a staff of about 600 all of whom I interact with on a regular basis. I get about 1500-2200 tickets escalated to me personally each month, so I do deal with almost everyone. I could say that at present maybe 10 people can completely do their job effectively and maybe another 50 who can do most of it and have areas where they're significantly weak. The people who are very effective eventually get promoted to my team though. For our newest hires, we've given up on recruiting technical skill completely and hire based on phone skills and business sense. The hope is that they can be trained to be effective. Our training department sucks and I have absolutely no hope for this plan to work, but we need butts in seats to meet SLA on our new contracts. OP's numbers are very believable.

sokoloff 13y ago
You're averaging a ticket escalation to you every 5 working minutes, and you have another job to do on top of those escalations?! I can believe you about the not the best conditions for your employees bit, yourself included...
- 13y ago