11–20 of 41 posts
I'm half-tempted to make a shame board to let applicants tally up how many unanswered candidates each company has.
The interview and the article state that "In some cases employers do not want to hire anyone at all, they think it's cheaper to leave positions unfilled!". If it is cheaper to leave a position vacant, why bother listing it as open? Wouldn't it make more sense to eliminate it?
Sometimes there is an internal candidate that will get the job, yet it still has to be posted for some arcane rule/law... Or so I hear.
I once had a job at a large institution created, for me, with requirements based solely on my resume.
The automated HR system decided I wasn't a match for the job. It took a month or two for them to be able to hire me after that fiasco.
Just got hired to make software that ranks candidates based on more dynamic qualities, like the ability to answer basic logic problems or complete a task that the job may require. Could be cool.
I know it seems horrendous to a lot of people that thinks that computers are the solution to every problem but as of the current state of technology, it just does not work. I have been in the position of an applicant recently and the tests are just plain ridiculous. From the "IQ-Test" at Bloomberg for engineers to the automated "solve our problem and get hired" websites the system is just bloated with these cheap ( and shi* ) solutions.
It's time for companies to put some money on the table to hire real people doing real interviews to candidates. Any company that don't involve somebody at step 1 of the recruitment process to assist you and that claims that "Employees are first!", I say: bullshit!
How about the fact that none of these employers even have the courtesy to contact the applicant at all? I'm not talking only about unsolicited resumes sent to H/R managers, but job applications submitted through the big websites like Dice, Monster, and Careerbuilder. Not even a "we'll keep you on file" like the old days. I'm half-tempted to make a shame board to let applicants tally up how many unanswered candidates…
At least, that's the argument I've heard from HR people as to why applicants aren't contacted back. However... whether you contact me or not, I still don't have the job, and if I'm inclined to sue, I'll do it regardless of whether you show me basic courtesy or not.
On the other hand, this article is laden with so much hyperbolic moralizing that it makes me take almost none of it seriously.
One of SeatGeek's founders (where I work) has written repeatedly about the insane problem of managing job applications [http://jackg.org/screening-with-an-arbitrary-test]. This is not a self-inflicted wound. We're talking dozens to hundreds of actually unqualified applicants for individual jobs, and the idea that a 15 person company is going to carry someone around for 6 months while they're "trained" is ludicrous.
It is absolutely true that there is a skills-gap in some industries. [Software is one of them]
It is absolutely true that a bad hire is more expensive than a non-hire.
It is absolutely true that some HR departments are breath-takingly incompetent, although most have a pretty good handle on their needs and cost structures, to be perfectly honest.
All that said, trying to spin this into a "the corporations are destroying the country!" story is beyond idiocy.
There is a moderately interesting point to be made here that automated candidate screening software is not a panacea, and while it can do a good job of filtering through the hundreds or thousands of applicants that might materialize for a single post, it might cause you to miss out on a good fit. On the other hand, this article is laden with so much hyperbolic moralizing that it makes me take almost none of it seriou…
Not to say that every big company has this sort of hiring inefficiency, but it seems like it's definitely a predisposition as you increase in size.
Most people seem to say that hiring is arguably the most important thing you do as a company. This shitty system can absolutely work to your advantage in trying to recruit talent.
Just got hired to make software that ranks candidates based on more dynamic qualities, like the ability to answer basic logic problems or complete a task that the job may require. Could be cool.
If I desired not to be civil I'd say "you're part of the problem assuming a tough problem can't be solved for some abstract reason" but since I want to be civil I won't say that.