Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You Only Need 50% of Job “Requirements”

talent.works

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 254 posts

Re: You Only Need 50% of Job “Requirements”

#101

Post by SilasX »

dfxm12 wrote: post #100
carlmr wrote: post #47

I've only once ticked of roughly 95% of job requirements. I didn't get the job. They actually cited the 1/20 requirements I didn't fulfill and said they can't hire anybody who doesn't have that. They wanted a 100% candidate. Looking through the list of the things they listed as must haves and that they wanted an internal candidate I showed them it is statistically very unlikely they would even find a better candidate…

They wanted a 100% candidate. You sure about that? Maybe they wanted an easy way to tell people no. Maybe that 1/20 requirement was very heavily weighted compared to the other 19. Maybe they didn't really want to hire anyone at all or wanted to hire a specific person, but had to make a job posting for political/legal/policy reasons...

That's definitely an understandable thing the employer might do, but if they're still not getting a "good enough" candidate after a year, they're probably too demanding one way or another.

Of course, it's also plausible that they just never took the posting down.

Re: You Only Need 50% of Job “Requirements”

#102

Post by SilasX »

rossdavidh wrote: post #68

I think many people write their job description's requirements, as if it were the opening stage of a negotiation. You list everything you want as if it were a requirement, and you will only get about half of that. But the problem is, it isn't a negotiation, it's a minimum spec (especially if you put the word "required" next to that line), and so many quite good candidates won't apply. However, typically, I see 20-30…

>I think many people write their job description's requirements, as if it were the opening stage of a negotiation. You list everything you want as if it were a requirement, and you will only get about half of that. But the problem is, it isn't a negotiation, it's a minimum spec (especially if you put the word "required" next to that line), and so many quite good candidates won't apply.

They have the option to distinguish "minimum/required" vs "nice to have", though.

Re: You Only Need 50% of Job “Requirements”

#103

Post by austincheney »

sethammons wrote: post #83
austincheney wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have only seen this in practice once at a little hedge fund called Bridgewater. It sounds like you are making assumptions of what you think the testing is without any frame of reference. Also, anger is an emotion opposed to a personality designation.

ok, and? We've also seen "how many pingpong balls can fill a school bus" from the likes of Google. They eventually learned it was not a good filter. If a personality test truly is better, I want to know because I'm involved with hiring at my company. What qualifies Bridgewater's take on this? How have they leveraged it and to what effect? Correlation, causation, all that jazz too - if I want to be taller, I should ob…

> If a personality test truly is better, I want to know because I'm involved with hiring at my company.

Then I recommend getting in contact with a behavioral health professional.

> What qualifies Bridgewater's take on this?

Their success and retention.

When I went through the Bridgewater process there were about 6 different personally tests I took. Some were more precise than others. I measured a 96% objectivity score which is a statistical anomaly. I ultimately dropped out as I found a less risky position in my local metro far away from the east coast.

Re: You Only Need 50% of Job “Requirements”

#104

Post by mcv »

rhacker wrote: post #90
carlmr wrote: post #47

I've only once ticked of roughly 95% of job requirements. I didn't get the job. They actually cited the 1/20 requirements I didn't fulfill and said they can't hire anybody who doesn't have that. They wanted a 100% candidate. Looking through the list of the things they listed as must haves and that they wanted an internal candidate I showed them it is statistically very unlikely they would even find a better candidate…

It's one thing for engineers to "be the HR department" at small companies. They are willing to let things slide because they know the candidate, especially after interviewing them, that they can fill in the knowledge gaps (well I don't know about the willing to move to china bit). Contrast that with a large company with a specific HR department that is in charge of taking a job requirement sheet and finding and filte…

If HR has no idea what the job means, they also shouldn't be the one selecting candidates and conducting interviews.

Re: You Only Need 50% of Job “Requirements”

#105

Post by dfxm12 »

rossdavidh wrote: post #68

I think many people write their job description's requirements, as if it were the opening stage of a negotiation. You list everything you want as if it were a requirement, and you will only get about half of that. But the problem is, it isn't a negotiation, it's a minimum spec (especially if you put the word "required" next to that line), and so many quite good candidates won't apply. However, typically, I see 20-30…

so many quite good candidates won't apply.

Shame on someone for writing unrealistic or unnecessary "requirements", but also shame on the engineer who doesn't even apply because of them.

I wonder how truly good a candidate is if they get discouraged so easily. Maybe a hidden requirement 1 is showing a willingness to try to punch above one's weight or displaying some self confidence during the application process. After all, what's really the difference between 4 years of development experience in X language vs 5?

Re: You Only Need 50% of Job “Requirements”

#106

Post by chaosite »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #86
rossdavidh wrote: post #68

I think many people write their job description's requirements, as if it were the opening stage of a negotiation. You list everything you want as if it were a requirement, and you will only get about half of that. But the problem is, it isn't a negotiation, it's a minimum spec (especially if you put the word "required" next to that line), and so many quite good candidates won't apply. However, typically, I see 20-30…

> e.g. "passionate about software development", "good communicator" Yeah, this is where bias and other cruft comes creeping in. "Passionate about software development" usually means, "our PM sucks, but he's the CEO's nephew, so you're going to work late to meet deadlines".

Or it could mean "our HR dept likes flowery language in job postings".

I.e., it means literally nothing.

Re: You Only Need 50% of Job “Requirements”

#107

Post by alistairSH »

rossdavidh wrote: post #68

I think many people write their job description's requirements, as if it were the opening stage of a negotiation. You list everything you want as if it were a requirement, and you will only get about half of that. But the problem is, it isn't a negotiation, it's a minimum spec (especially if you put the word "required" next to that line), and so many quite good candidates won't apply. However, typically, I see 20-30…

We typically list a few must-haves and a slightly longer list of nice-to-haves.

Re: You Only Need 50% of Job “Requirements”

#108

Post by rejschaap »

carlmr wrote: post #97
turingcompeteme wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I showed them it is statistically very unlikely they would find a better candidate So I get where you are coming from, but not having the 1/20 requirement is a much easier excuse than explaining why they don't want someone who thinks it's ok to do this.

I only showed them after they already told me it's a no. I didn't really have a reason to be polite after that. I was just a bit incredulous. The job posting is still open now 1 year later, although they refreshed the date.

You should always be polite, you might meet them again in a different time and place. It sounds like this rejection bothers you a lot. You are in danger of not seeing the bigger picture because you are hung up on not meeting that single requirement.

Re: You Only Need 50% of Job “Requirements”

#109

Post by mbesto »

rossdavidh wrote: post #68

I think many people write their job description's requirements, as if it were the opening stage of a negotiation. You list everything you want as if it were a requirement, and you will only get about half of that. But the problem is, it isn't a negotiation, it's a minimum spec (especially if you put the word "required" next to that line), and so many quite good candidates won't apply. However, typically, I see 20-30…

> I think many people write their job description's requirements, as if it were the opening stage of a negotiation.

As someone who has written and hired technical talent - this is absolutely true.

> so many quite good candidates won't apply.

I agree with your sentiment but generally disagree in practice. The reality is I get 100's of applications that are nowhere near qualified for positions I've listed. We're talking like recent grads applying for a VP of E-commerce (~10 years exp on the spec).

Re: You Only Need 50% of Job “Requirements”

#110

Post by monsieurbanana »

codingdave wrote: post #73

That does match up with my job search I just completed. I sent out 5 resumes, got an interview on every one where I had a majority of the qualifications, did not get called on the 2 that were more off-target. But I'm not sure that the sales pitch this article is trying to make is valid. They claim at the end that they'll get you 5.8x more interviews. But is that good? In my 3 interview processes, they each brought to…

On the other hand, you keep doing what you're already doing.

I have a really high ratio of interview / job offers, but that's because I choose to apply for jobs where I had nearly 100% of the requirements.

I think this was a mistake. I should have taken more risks, try to apply for more challenging jobs that aren't completely in my comfort zone.

Post reply on HN