| ▲ | SoftTalker 6 days ago |
| > Still, stretched-thin HR teams say it’s the only way to handle thousands of applicants. You're doing it wrong if you're considering "thousands" of applicants. First of all ask your current good employees if they can refer anyone. If you need to go to resumes, sort by qualifications. Screen out obvious robo-applications, you know them when you see them just like you know spam email from the subject line alone. Hint: if you're an insurance or financial services company in Chicago and getting applications from people with a degree from Stanford and 10 years of amazing experience at FAANG companies, they are fakes. Hire the first candidate that has acceptable experience and interviews well. Check their references, but you don't need to consider hundreds or even dozens of people. Most people are average and that's who you're most likely going to hire no matter what you do. Your job is also nothing very special. Have some humility. Very few companies need to be hiring the top 1% type of person, and your company is almost certainly of no interest to those people anyway. |
|
| ▲ | recursivecaveat 6 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Having thousands of applicants is only an issue if you give yourself the contrived problem of hiring the best person who sent you a resume. Your true objective is to strike a balance between cost of search and hiring someone from the top N% of potential people. Nobody has ever walked into a grocery store and bemoaned that there's no way they could locate the ripest banana in the building. You pick a number, evaluate that many at random, move on. I think it galls people that they are likely cutting the best candidate out of the sample, but to be real: you don't have a magic incredibly sensitive, deterministic and bias free hiring method that can reliably pick the single best candidate out of thousands anyways. Any kind of cheapo ai-driven interview step you run is very possibly doing worse things to your sample than just cutting it down to size. |
| |
| ▲ | glenngillen 6 days ago | parent [-] | | One of the refreshing things about the Amazon/AWS hiring approach was basically this. Did we agree this person can do the job? First one to get to a yes gets an offer. No interviewing all the candidates and stack ranking and trying juggle them to have a plan A and plan B (though people could influence that somewhat through scheduling). First qualified candidate succeeds and everyone gets back to work. | | |
| ▲ | zx8080 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > No interviewing all the candidates and stack ranking and trying juggle them to have a plan A and plan B (though people could influence that somewhat through scheduling). What do you mean by this? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | franktankbank 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You are giving advice to some of the dumbest people in the country. I'm not saying its bad advice, but these people are universally stupid. I don't know exactly why things ended up this way, but I'd love to hear where this isn't a truth. |
| |
| ▲ | nyarlathotep_ 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > You are giving advice to some of the dumbest people in the country. I'm not saying its bad advice, but these people are universally stupid. I don't know exactly why things ended up this way, but I'd love to hear where this isn't a truth. These organizations are so dysfunctional on this front too, in so many ways. Even when the technical people communicate "requirements" to HR, it's often a scattershot of everything the department touched even in some ancillary fashion in the last 5 years, and now ends up a game of telephone that, because someone in the department wants to migrate to 'Hive MQ', it's a "hard requirement" with 7-YOE required even tho it was literally just a managers' idea with no implementation path aside from a sprint ticket to "discuss it." They allegedly need "an expert in IOT" but you'll spend 6 months configuring GitHub runners for some Java CRUD thing. Companies accidentally, by product of pure dysfunction, end up rug pulling people all the time. | |
| ▲ | ludicity 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I took a run at recruiting recently and it's so easy to outperform recruiters that it's honestly depressing. Just replying to emails at the times I promised made candidates self-report that I'm the best recruiter they've ever worked with. | | |
| ▲ | nlawalker 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Depends on your definition of “outperform”… if recruiters were being evaluated on what the candidates think of them they’d try harder in that respect. |
| |
| ▲ | jjk166 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Debris tends to collect in spots that never get cleaned. For some reason, HR never seems to lay off HR. | | |
| ▲ | prewett 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Wasn’t HR a large part of the tech layoffs a couple years ago? | | |
| ▲ | scruple 5 days ago | parent [-] | | It was at my BigTechCo except then they had to backfill and the people they got to replace them are frankly assholes compared to the people they laid off. |
|
| |
| ▲ | flkiwi 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They are dumb and they are mean because they are empowered and they have access to secrets. And a department's designated HR person will not respond to questions from anyone lower than a VP, and when they do they'll point you to the company intranet. | |
| ▲ | ed_elliott_asc 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Don’t hold back with your opinions! | | | |
| ▲ | SV_BubbleTime 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Try and convince me that HR departments aren’t majority jobs programs for the less intellectually fortunate. It would be an uphill battle. | | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | My main counterargument here is that many office jobs don't need "intellectual fortune". Society needs to be honest and know when you just need people for accountability's sake, for small and/or odd ends to meet, or to manage clerical tasks that pile up. And remember that humans who do a role for a whike get really good at it, if you don't fire them after a few months to make earnings calls look 1% better. Title inflation is a phenomenon spread far beyond tech.we shouldn't shame "learnable on the job work", but we don't need to pretend everyone is a VP either. HR in this case is there to allegedly help resolve problems with workers (reality: there to help prevent or alleviate the workload of lawyers). They have no business in recruiting past maybe a behavioral call. | | |
| ▲ | franktankbank 6 days ago | parent [-] | | > Society needs to be honest > They have no business in recruiting past maybe a behavioral call. |
| |
| ▲ | franktankbank 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You:Me <-> Preacher:Choir I actually have much more negative thoughts than that, but I'm told we should assume they are stupid rather than malicious. | | |
| ▲ | jeffrallen 6 days ago | parent [-] | | If you don't think HR is malicious, you should read Company by Max Barry. | | |
| ▲ | franktankbank 6 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm sure we are on the same team here but I try not to base my attitudes on works of fiction. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | yosito 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > if you're an insurance or financial services company in Chicago and getting applications from people with a degree from Stanford and 10 years of amazing experience at FAANG companies, they are fakes. Maybe this explains why in my last job search I sent over 3000 applications and got almost nothing but form letter rejections back. I've got 10 years of mission-driven experience and NASA on my resume. In the end, I got my current job through a personal connection with someone I've known for 20 years. |
|
| ▲ | zanderwohl 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Your job is also nothing very special. Have some humility. Very few companies need to be hiring the top 1% type of person, and your company is almost certainly of no interest to those people anyway. Right now, every company thinks that because times are uncertain, they only want to hire the best of the best, so they can be sure of their choice. Of course, everyone else has the same idea and the "best of the best" already got hired somewhere better. I'm not really sure why employers are taking so long to realize this. |
|
| ▲ | MOARDONGZPLZ 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Related: Funnily enough I’ve been getting a ton from robo applications who prepend a whole page with ascii art declaring that this is a robot application and the applicant (whose CV follows) is a “great match” and that I should reach out to the ai application mill with feedback. Naturally those are straight to the bin, but it’s just insane. |
|
| ▲ | stainablesteel 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| it's not, HR people are always lazy. i would ask a single chat bot to review every resume/cover letter and suggest the best based on some criteria, i would also ask it to cluster them into generalizable groups so i can review it |
|
| ▲ | ebiester 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And that’s how to make it impossible to break into an industry regardless of capabilities. And god Covid if you have to move to another city. |
|
| ▲ | nullorempty 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I love this response. |
|
| ▲ | reaperducer 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| First of all ask your current good employees if they can refer anyone. Not permitted, depending on location and industry. That kind of thought is how you end up with entire departments of 20-year-old single white guys wearing the same polo shirts and khaki pants. A company with any size legal department is going to require you to consider applications from the general public. |
| |
| ▲ | kjkjadksj 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Well they will ask you to "formally" consider applications from the general public. How this often works is you already chose your ideal candidate before the job ad lands, you have their resume in front of you, you tailor the job ad perfectly to fit this resume. And then you put out the job ad for the obligatory 2 week period while you informally onboard them. Maybe you even let them crank overtime for the first month to "pay" for those first two weeks when they weren't enrolled in payroll. Seen it play out at a company with over 40k employees so I figure its common everywhere to operate like this with these legal fig leafs. | | |
| ▲ | reaperducer 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Seen it play out at a company with over 40k employees so I figure its common everywhere to operate like this with these legal fig leafs. The company I work for (under 10,000 employees) hires an outside company to conduct audits for this every two years. I have no idea how it works. |
| |
| ▲ | weldboss 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|