Live data from Hacker News

Non-hiring Practices

blog.diiq.org

91–100 of 132 posts

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a good point to be polite to everyone. It is a Hollywood attitude: the "Hollywood No." Super kind, polite, excited people who figure out the best way to decline you, because nobody knows how big you could get. On the other hand, your situation might be rare. How often, in the graph of commercial interactions, does the dissatisfied recruit become potential client? Outside the extremely highly compensated (like a…

Yes, it's probably rare; but it could also be an example of poor decision-making in general. If I put you in the position of stating yes/no on a multi-million dollar contract - your emotional grudge issues because you were slighted in another life is the last thing I'm asking of your professional judgment. These comments show that human issues, and perhaps trivial issues at that, are very much at play in the business…

If all you wanted was a minimal features analysis you'd have asked an accountant. You asked this professional in the field for his judgment because of his experience and you got it.

That company is unprofessional because they ignore you unless they're making money on you right now. Nobody wants to be stuck waiting for consultants who've found more profitable work and are constantly rescheduling you.

That 'grudge' is really valuable business intelligence.

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#92

The author of the submitted blog post begins with "I’m looking for work right now; and I have looked for work in the past. It’s something everyone does, now and again." There is indeed an ongoing interest in finding paying work among the many participants on Hacker News. That's why I have devoted time and effort (with the kind help of several other HN participants) to writing up a FAQ about company hiring procedures,…

I assume that most recruiters keep a list of applicants for a given ad. Is it really asking too much to copy that list into an email client and send them a polite response? We are not talking about 5 minutes per applicant, we are talking about 5 minutes total.

All that talk about paying customers is bullshit. This kind of attitude, to only do stuff that directly results in more revenue -- paying customers are turned off by that attitude as well.

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#93
post #72

It is not merely rude but evil that anyone accepts a status quo of ignoring the unhired. +1000000 I have not often been in the job market, but every time I have, I've been stunned by this practice: Run an ad, get a bunch of resumes, ignore many of them. #1 Get this, all prospective employers: If you have time to run an ad, YOU HAVE TIME TO ACKNOWLEDGE EVERY RESPONSE. The typical response I usually get: "But we got so…

I love 37Signals - their products and their content, but this is the biggest issue I have with them - ignoring applicants.

I've never shared the story of my efforts in applying to 37Signals, but this seems like a great time :)

About 6 months ago, 37Signals advertised for a dedicated Conversion guy/gal:

http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3175-were-hiring-help-us-sign...

This was very exciting for me. I'd been a long-time 37Signals customer and over the last couple years had been studying and practicing with optimizing the customer life-cycle (conversion, onboarding, retention, etc) with my various contracting clients.

I've been more of a backend and devops engineer for much of my career, but I always loved when I'd get to simplify or add enhancements to a site and see the traffic and engagement go up. It had become my side-passion and I devoured all the books and articles I could find on the subject.

So I spent several days looking over the 37Signals product marketing and coming up with a strong pitch. The Basecamp landing page was full of classic mistakes and seemed like the lowest hanging fruit to address, so that's what I picked to overhaul.

Here's my initial pitch: http://yconvert.com/

I kept thinking about the problem and I realized that the mockup I sent of a new Basecamp landing page was still pretty weak, so I spent some more time revamping it and sent this 2 days later:

http://yconvert.com/redux.html

I still kept thinking about how it could be improved, so I also addressed the Basecamp funnel flow and sent this another 2 days later:

http://yconvert.com/basecamp_funnel.html via this link-baity tweet: https://twitter.com/nanobeep/status/212543236374409216

During this process, I watched my logs carefully and geo-located every IP that hit my application. Sure enough, the guys I wanted to see it had seen it. They also saw every update. They also tried some of my suggestions on the Basecamp landing page. And they also ended an online discussion with a puppy pic (if you reviewed my pitches, you'll know why that is significant).

Now, I'm not bitter about being ignored and I don't necessarily think it's evil or anything. I totally understand that folks get busy and things fall through the cracks - but companies should realize that it's often your customers and fans that apply for your jobs.

When I'm hiring for something, I'll admit that if I get an application where the person obviously cut-and-pasted a generic cover letter with no thought for the actual job, I may ignore the applicant unless they follow-up. However, if someone puts obvious significant effort into applying personally to my job - I would never ignore them. It's just really bad form.

I'm still a 37Signals fan, and I realize that as only one data point, I could just be that one guy they forgot to reply to. But if it's a more common problem, I do hope they change their hiring process to treat their applicants with more kindness and respect.

---

P.S. I also have to mention that during this process I emailed Patrick McKenzie for advice and he responded immediately with some great and timely counsel. He encouraged me to be persistent and be as engaging as possible, and I applied that the best I could. He's a scholar and a gentleman.

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#94
post #27

While I agree that it is the decent thing to do, the whole '' Reply>Copy>Paste>Send. 5 seconds.' is probably not entirely accurate. Many organizations spend weeks going through hundreds of applications before contacting the candidates that they are interested in. Also, in general, if you've applied and haven't heard anything back by the end of the week, it's probably safe to cross them off your list. If it turns out…

> While I agree that it is the decent thing to do, the whole '' Reply>Copy>Paste>Send. 5 seconds.' is probably not entirely accurate. Many organizations spend weeks going through hundreds of applications before contacting the candidates that they are interested in. I think the stories about effort required to look at applicants is a load of hooey and is an excuse to make HR departments and managers seem busy. It's ve…

think the stories about effort required to look at applicants is a load of hooey and is an excuse to make HR departments and managers seem busy. It's very hard for for me to believe that a hiring manager has to eyeball a resume for more than a minute to see if the candidate goes in the "maybe" pile or the "no" pile, and no more than 5 minutes to take a good look at each resume in the "maybe" pile

I've been on the hiring side and have spent time with hundreds of resumes and it can take days. Especially in times of economic woe where you tend to get a lot more qualified applicants.

Even with strong well defined hiring characteristics anything past the first couple of passes takes time - or is arbitrary/probability driven.

Let's take your strategy with 250 applicants (and I've way larger numbers on occasion);

* 250 - 1m per resume into yes/no. Let's be generous and say that cuts out 150. At your one minute per-resume that's over 4.1 hours gone already. (I can tell you that 1m is a hopelessly optimistic number. 1m for the people who totally suck. 2-5mins minimum to deal with the amazing number of really quite talented people who completely suck at communicating those skills in a resume.)

* 100 left - at 5m per resume. That's another 8.3 hours gone (and again 5m is way optimistic for a vaguely deep look). Let's say that cuts it down to 25.

* 25 - deep look. That's time spent googling, poking at their track history. Discussing pros and cons with team. That's at least 10m per resume. Another 4.1 hours minimum.

... so thats more than sixteen hours doing nothing but reading and reviewing resumes. Which translates, once you take doing actual work around that, screen breaks, lunch, etc. into probably nearly three days of actual time. For time estimates which are, in my experience, optimistic...

Not that this is an excuse for not getting in touch after a 'no'. If you're getting hundreds of applications you set up a process that can deal with hundreds of applications - but the selection process itself can and does take time and effort. It's damn hard and, in my experience anyway, technical folk foul it up just as much - if not more than - HR professionals.

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#95
I'm amazed advice like this needs to be given. I was contacted and asked for a resume by someone at Rumblefish who wouldn't divulge how he got my contact info and complained about how hard it was to hire good developers. The position looked interesting and I consider myself a pretty good developer so sent him my resume and told him I would call in a couple days to chat.

Before I called, I spent some time going over the job description writing down notes so we could make the best use of our time.

He didn't answer his phone, my last email, or his voicemail and I never heard from him again. Maybe he just knew after reading my resume that I was the wrong person for the job. Because of his lack of professionalism we'll never get to have a conversation about why, and I'll never refer anyone to them.

With such powerful analytical skills and immaculate professionalism I'm baffled as to why they're having trouble finding good developers.

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Universities wreck Google's response. Tens of thousands of applications, and every one is read—by machine or computer—and a response practically guaranteed. Why are American university admissions so much more organized than American business admissions? Easy answer: Application fees. And those who apply for free or for scholarships are essentially subsidized by someone else. Hard answer: Universities weren't always o…

I don't think fairness was ever the subject at hand. Rather, it's the quality of the process that's up for debate. If you've been rejected for a job, regardless of whether or not your rejection was fair, the point is that you'd probably like to receive some sort of notification as such. Otherwise, how long do you sit around waiting to hear back before you give up and move on? Honestly, the process isn't just cumberso…

You're right, fairness isn't at hand. But maybe we would tolerate being mean to some people and nicer to others as long as we're being fair—that is, we're efficiently matching worker to employer.

You say that one employer's neglect harms other employer's hiring. That's a good point, and it shows that organized applications, if applied across all firms, help everyone.

A single application system with a single deadline is kind of how universities admissions work. Maybe that's the best system we know. Can we have a system like universities admissions without the fees, is the real question?

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#97
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Universities wreck Google's response. Tens of thousands of applications, and every one is read—by machine or computer—and a response practically guaranteed. Why are American university admissions so much more organized than American business admissions? Easy answer: Application fees. And those who apply for free or for scholarships are essentially subsidized by someone else. Hard answer: Universities weren't always o…

Universities receive perhaps 1-10 apps per slot. Business receive 100s of apps per slot. I don't think there's really a comparison to be made.

Very true. There are severely competitive scholarships and fellowships, however, that exceed a 100:1 applicants-to-slot ratio. I'm not sure what the averages are. But we already know the comparison is hard because applications to university cost money. Maybe the ratio of applicants-to-slot and cost of application are just parameters of the same model, not proof that there are two different models. But you raise an interesting question:

Does a higher ratio necessarily imply more competitive? It could be that more unqualified applicants apply to more jobs than unqualified students apply to university. That would suggest that organization reduces the friction for matching the right employee to the right employer; but differences in ratio due to organization doesn't prove that the right employee is more likely to be matched to the right employer.

Why does this matter? If we take efficiency to mean reducing friction, then business will never inform applicants they were rejected. If we take efficiency to mean better candidates get better jobs more frequently, business will always inform applicants they were rejected.

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#99
post #72

It is not merely rude but evil that anyone accepts a status quo of ignoring the unhired. +1000000 I have not often been in the job market, but every time I have, I've been stunned by this practice: Run an ad, get a bunch of resumes, ignore many of them. #1 Get this, all prospective employers: If you have time to run an ad, YOU HAVE TIME TO ACKNOWLEDGE EVERY RESPONSE. The typical response I usually get: "But we got so…

I found when hiring that I could process 30-40 applications per hour. If I liked the application, I would respond with, "Name, thanks for applying. Are you free for a 15-minute phone interview on Date?" If I didn't like the application, I would reply with, "Name, thanks for applying. We received many applications and are going to hire someone else, but we will keep your information on file." The responses were appreciated by most people and, again, didn't take much time. I agree replying should be expected of employers.

Re: Non-hiring Practices

#100

The author of the submitted blog post begins with "I’m looking for work right now; and I have looked for work in the past. It’s something everyone does, now and again." There is indeed an ongoing interest in finding paying work among the many participants on Hacker News. That's why I have devoted time and effort (with the kind help of several other HN participants) to writing up a FAQ about company hiring procedures,…

The key idea is that companies get unimaginably more applicants, some with very poor fits to the advertised job requirements, than most job applicants suppose.

If the objective is to reduce friction in hiring, firms will never inform rejected applications. Nothing could be less frictional than doing nothing.

We have to rephrase efficiency to mean better candidates are more likely to get the best jobs. That's really what we mean by "efficient labor markets."

Post reply on HN