I've always wondered something: Does Taleo compare your resume across ALL of its sites? Like if you submit a resume for Company A, but you also sent one for Company B, and both use Taleo, does the software say "This applicant applied elsewhere and here's what they said that was different" ? I've never received a response from a Taleo system.
I have similar experience with Greenhouse's system.
I've used Greenhouse on the hiring end, and there's no 'extra' info about candidates. We only see what they submitted in their application.
Taleo's particular talent is in interfering with applications to other companies that use Taleo. Suppose you use Taleo to submit to Oracle. Great! But when you use Taleo to submit to Cisco, you need to use a different address because email addresses for oracle.taleo.net and cisco.taleo.net are in the same namespace. There are a couple of online systems that make me reconsider applying, and Taleo definitely leads the…
Wait...you can only apply to one of their customers?
You do need to reapply from a blank slate to each customer. Once I'm redirected to a Taleo site for applying, I immediately exit the job application and look elsewhere.
How do you "build a network" at companies you have never worked before, and you have no contacts at? You start adding them to your linkedin and then spamming them with messages saying "please be my friend"? I am asking because I heard this recommendation (build a network) all the time, but it is really really difficult to do, more so if you consider the number of companies where one can apply...
You jest, but that method literally works. I'm trying to break into finance, from a programming, web-development kind of background (with CS degree), which is a pretty tough nut to crack. I've had a great deal of success just reaching out to people on LinkedIn who've worked on cool stuff in areas I find interesting, message them to see if they're keen to meet for a coffee/beer/etc. Meetups are fun too. A good number…
Yeah, "honey, this year don't count me in as I am going to be out all nights having drink with strangers so that i can build my network"... it reminds me of that day I dared to call a recruiter because his phone was listed on the job posting, he was like "wtf dude, why are you calling me?"
Part of the reason is that rejected candidates tend to ask why they were rejected, which is a massive time sink. The logic goes that it's better to black hole than it is to be inundated with requests for reasons.
When recruiting, I chose to reject thousands of people. For obvious rejections, I sent an auto generated email that looked like it could be from a human. If someone asked why they'd been rejected, I'd simply say the hiring manager chose to focus on more obvious matches for the position, and that was the end of it. Maybe 1 in 100 asked for feedback, but I didn't keep stats. For a few candidates who were unlikely to be…
>For a few candidates who were unlikely to be a fit, I'd reject them, and say why I didn't think it'd a match.
I read that a lot of people don't do this because they are afraid of $RANDOM lawsuit.
The only thing that kept me going on this was excellent communication with both my new manager and HR. They guided me through the process and were very honest about where we stood and how I should answer ambiguous questions in the application. I was certain I would pass the background check but nonetheless it felt unnerving to let those other offers expire for something that was not really a sure thing. Also some of…
Hey guys, this guy has Secret Clearance!
(Even though this isn't OP's actual clearance level) you shouldn't be screaming out that a person has a certain level of US DoD security clearance (or DOE, DHS, etc).
I'm more and more convinced that being a cog in some corporate machine is coming to an end. We've collectively refined corporate processes to the point that it no longer requires human ingenuity or creativity. This has all happened under the guise of making things more efficient so that a stock ticker will be less volatile and will consistently move up and to the right. The candidate tracking software that this article parodies is one example of such an automated and "efficient" system. One gets the sense that the recruiters are almost secondary. Soon a "dog" will really be able to screen candidates for a job.
I don't think I'm saying anything new here. The mechanization of such work has been happening for a while now and the smart move is to start planning for that inevitability. Anything that requires basic pattern matching and procedures is pretty much gone. My retirement account I think is currently managed by a "robo advisor". Hiring humans to do such mechanical tasks will start getting more and more expensive relative to tweaking some parameters in some neural network coupled maybe with some domain specific policy/optimization framework.
Personally I don't think this is such a bad state of affairs. Why should societal optimization tasks be handled with heroic human effort when we can just do it with math?
How do you "build a network" at companies you have never worked before, and you have no contacts at? You start adding them to your linkedin and then spamming them with messages saying "please be my friend"? I am asking because I heard this recommendation (build a network) all the time, but it is really really difficult to do, more so if you consider the number of companies where one can apply...
You jest, but that method literally works. I'm trying to break into finance, from a programming, web-development kind of background (with CS degree), which is a pretty tough nut to crack. I've had a great deal of success just reaching out to people on LinkedIn who've worked on cool stuff in areas I find interesting, message them to see if they're keen to meet for a coffee/beer/etc. Meetups are fun too. A good number…
maybe my target was wrong, but I wrote a nice/short introduction to about 200 recruiters on linkedin, only 3 replied... if recruiters, who should be looking out for candidates, reply so lowly, how many people do you have to contact? by the way, the 3 recruiters replied to me but they never again contacted me back...
In my job search, I've been surprised by how often you submit a resume online, and then you don't even get a rejection email. It's a true "black hole" in that you never hear back, not even with a "no thanks". I think it's disrespectful of candidates to ask them to spend time filling out an application, and then leave them hanging because you're (presumably) too lazy to read it.
I did an on-site almost two weeks ago and haven't heard anything :-/.
When recruiting, I chose to reject thousands of people. For obvious rejections, I sent an auto generated email that looked like it could be from a human. If someone asked why they'd been rejected, I'd simply say the hiring manager chose to focus on more obvious matches for the position, and that was the end of it. Maybe 1 in 100 asked for feedback, but I didn't keep stats. For a few candidates who were unlikely to be…
>For a few candidates who were unlikely to be a fit, I'd reject them, and say why I didn't think it'd a match. I read that a lot of people don't do this because they are afraid of $RANDOM lawsuit.
I always assume this is just an excuse - they don't give you a reason because there is no reason for them to give you a reason. If there was some benefit for them to giving you a reason they would not fear the lawsuits. Maybe some people from Europe can talk about whether companies give them reasons, I suspect even in Europe companies don't tell applicants why they didn't hire them.