211–220 of 348 posts
Don't be surprised when we stop jumping through hoops if you're not going to give any feedback. If you think you can run your company solely off hoop-jumpers, more power to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you get a piece of feedback from one person, you know what you would need to do differently to get hired by that person. If you get similar pieces of feedback from 3 people, you now likely know what you need to do differently to get hired, period. It’s not about getting specific, individual pieces of feedback. It’s about being able to triangulate toward what you need to do differently. And maybe you get 3 pieces o…
That assumes there is no systematic bias. Which clearly there is.
We interviewed a lot of hiring managers/etc. while we were working on a previous business in the hiring space. As part of that, we asked them this very question. The fear of litigation was by far the biggest reason we heard, but there were some other popular reasons (mostly relating around conflict avoidance): * Notably, giving feedback feels like an opening for the candidate to submit a rebuttal instead of ending th…
On the contrary, most automated reject messages from recruitment systems use something along the lines of "we regret that other candidates were a better fit for this job".
This turns it to be widely useful, inoffensive and can be used instead of the real reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you get a piece of feedback from one person, you know what you would need to do differently to get hired by that person. If you get similar pieces of feedback from 3 people, you now likely know what you need to do differently to get hired, period. It’s not about getting specific, individual pieces of feedback. It’s about being able to triangulate toward what you need to do differently. And maybe you get 3 pieces o…
That assumes there is no systematic bias. Which clearly there is.
This is a non-helpful statement. Humans are bias machines. We function based on our collective experience or in some cases differed experience. Saying there is systemic bias doesn't really add anything other than saying exploit what ever bias you can find to your advantage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bloomberg did it to me. Even blocked my phone number. I figured that out when I changed my caller id. It was back in the day when VoIP was new and they didn't expect that someone could do that. It was worth hearing the panic on the voice when they realized who it was. The only reason I called was because they stiffed my the reimbursement for travel expenses which they had agreed to pay for. The HR turnover was so hig…
Interesting, when I worked at Bloomberg we had a standard form letter for rejections that was sent every time. (Email) Funny story about that, I'd set up a macro to fire off said email with one keypress. Finishing up a phone screen that went horribly, I thanked him for his time and all the other niceties, and pressed the key right as I was about to hang up. "But wait! I have some questions for you, too!" Cue the long…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rejection is incredibly difficult to deal with. I suspect some people will say they are immune to it, but (anecdotal example) I've been rejected from hundreds of jobs over the past 3 years and every one hurts a little. I felt it never got easier to deal with rejection, but it got easier to interview and move on. Perhaps it's not the rejection, but the energy in creating the next steps I need to take (more resumes, ta…
> rejected from hundreds of jobs Sounds extreme. Were you applying to random jobs?
For example: As a candidate you might submit a resume and get an automated "Thank you, we'll be in touch". There's a large variety of reasons why you might face a very low probability that someone will indeed be in touch that have nothing to do with you.
The most common is that you're just too late in the process. They might already have dozens of viable candidates in later stages. They are being economical about their interviewers' time, thinking: Well, the probability that all of those later-stage candidates will end up getting terminated is low, so we're not doing first-round interviews for now. But they are not being economical about expectations created in candidates' minds about the likelihood of getting an offer. They've simply defined the process to say: We pull the advertising after the role has been filled, because there is always the chance that we will have to go back to candidates in earlier rounds.
There might be even more extreme cases. Not saying that this is particularly common, but imagine a company has decided they need a diversity hire, say hiring a woman to an all-male tech team. All applications by men may be dead on arrival. They may not want to send out rejection letters so as not to establish the pattern.
Or the role may have already been filled and there may simply be clerical error or clerical laziness to blame about why the advertising hasn't been pulled yet.
So, from a candidate's point of view: "We will be in touch" means almost nothing. Having come across a job ad means less than nothing. Your calculation is simply going to be: I get one human contact out of every ten times I submit a resume. I get one firm offer out of every ten times I get a human contact. I'm shooting for three firm offers to choose from. So that means I have to submit my resume 300 times. Consequently you can't afford to be all too picky. You just submit to everything that could even remotely be a match. You only start putting real brain power into thinking about whether you actually want to work there in later stages of the process.
It's a sad state of affairs, but it's just the world we live in now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had something similar. I was given an extensive exam to take before the interview, and it consisted of weird things like 200 arithmetic problems in 15 minutes, picking the best synonym for 100 words in 5 minutes, etc. Things not humanly possible without immense preparation for that precise test. The interviewer comes in and starts berating me for not finishing and how I must’ve gone to a bad school, must not be sma…
I interviewed at twitter for a job working with their infra team. They had an Atlanta data center and they were interviewing me for that role to be remote out of Atlanta. I had to fly to SF to interview via video calls with the team in Atlanta because the manager was in SF. He told me he would prefer someone local in SF over lunch so I knew I was just filler. After lunch interview was with a xoogler and everyone earl…
Man I've been steady on the job hunt and I have to say I needed a funny story like this. Thank you.
I'd like to think there is a good follow up but my guess is you got ghosted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rejection is incredibly difficult to deal with. I suspect some people will say they are immune to it, but (anecdotal example) I've been rejected from hundreds of jobs over the past 3 years and every one hurts a little. I felt it never got easier to deal with rejection, but it got easier to interview and move on. Perhaps it's not the rejection, but the energy in creating the next steps I need to take (more resumes, ta…
> rejected from hundreds of jobs Sounds extreme. Were you applying to random jobs?
We interviewed a lot of hiring managers/etc. while we were working on a previous business in the hiring space. As part of that, we asked them this very question. The fear of litigation was by far the biggest reason we heard, but there were some other popular reasons (mostly relating around conflict avoidance): * Notably, giving feedback feels like an opening for the candidate to submit a rebuttal instead of ending th…
Here's another one: * We already had a candidate in mind but our hiring process requires us to publicly post the opening and interview other candidates before we hire the person we already decided on.