3 ms·

My approach is fine. I'm not having trouble finding work. Your approach sounds fine, too. That doesn't help the huge middle who only seek work every few years.

by itgoon 12y ago

My approach is fine. I'm not having trouble finding work. Your approach sounds fine, too. That doesn't help the huge middle who only seek work every few years. Nor does it help those employers who are just trying to find someone who's good at their job. I'm trying to change (oh so slightly) the system. Plenty of employers and hiring managers read HN. In the best of systems, there eventually has to be some trust between the principles. The current system begins by establishing _distrust_ from the outset. I'd think there would be plenty of people who would be interested in doing something about that. Or maybe everyone is happy with the status quo except me.

JSeymourATL 12y ago
> I'm trying to change (oh so slightly) the system. Right On... Every now and then, you hear of startups promising platforms that will be the Match DotCom for recruiting. I've yet to actually see one. The deciding human element in hiring is difficult at best.
lscore720 12y ago
You really do raise an interesting question, and no, you're not the only one frustrated with the recruiting status quo! And whether you're the best of the best, or just somewhere in the top 90%, there's probably an employer out there and an appropriate recruiter to match you isn't asking too much. It's the incentives inherent to the recruiting profession. To drastically improve it would require a massive overhaul and is improbable (like drastically improving literally any sales profession). In the meantime, it's the little things that count and can eventually cause positive change. A couple quick examples come to mind: 1. Recruiting start-ups/show HN ideas: a few successful ones are adding efficiencies, which is indirectly great for people like you. Because the successful recruiter/hiring manager/etc. can devote that extra time to making their little changes towards improving the system. Still, it's not hitting the real pain point. 2. HN posters like you, who remind hiring professionals, that there's yet another frustrated customer - you sound like a reasonable, capable person that a recruiter would be fortunate to work with; this especially lights a fire under people's asses, so thank you! My theory is that it'll require a serious effort by industry experts with zero expectation of financial return. It's going to have to be about the purpose, not the money, for the very (very) long-term. I shudder imagining the hardcore YC community response to this "non-profit"-esque prospect, but I don't know how else to solve it :-/

by itgoon 12y ago

JSeymourATL 12y ago

> I'm trying to change (oh so slightly) the system. Right On... Every now and then, you hear of startups promising platforms that will be the Match DotCom for recruiting. I've yet to actually see one. The deciding human element in hiring is difficult at best.

lscore720 12y ago

You really do raise an interesting question, and no, you're not the only one frustrated with the recruiting status quo! And whether you're the best of the best, or just somewhere in the top 90%, there's probably an employer out there and an appropriate recruiter to match you isn't asking too much. It's the incentives inherent to the recruiting profession. To drastically improve it would require a massive overhaul and is improbable (like drastically improving literally any sales profession). In the meantime, it's the little things that count and can eventually cause positive change. A couple quick examples come to mind: 1. Recruiting start-ups/show HN ideas: a few successful ones are adding efficiencies, which is indirectly great for people like you. Because the successful recruiter/hiring manager/etc. can devote that extra time to making their little changes towards improving the system. Still, it's not hitting the real pain point. 2. HN posters like you, who remind hiring professionals, that there's yet another frustrated customer - you sound like a reasonable, capable person that a recruiter would be fortunate to work with; this especially lights a fire under people's asses, so thank you! My theory is that it'll require a serious effort by industry experts with zero expectation of financial return. It's going to have to be about the purpose, not the money, for the very (very) long-term. I shudder imagining the hardcore YC community response to this "non-profit"-esque prospect, but I don't know how else to solve it :-/