You hate job hunting. I can change that. Talk to me about what you want it to be.

[AreaCode707]

Suffice it to say that I'm in a rather unique position right now where I very well could effect substantial change on the recruiting industry.

While I've got plenty of ideas around what's presently wrong and what I think should be changed there are always more good ideas out there. So let's hear them!

A few rules:

• Feel free to bitch and complain (I know recruiting isn't popular) but include a alternative idea or solution that would address the thing you hate.
• Assume that there are too many people applying for every applicant to personally talk to someone at the company
• Assume that recruiters are still a part of the process, no matter how much you may hate that. If you hate it, tell me why you hate it and make a proposal that helps address that reason.

I would also love to hear about your personal process for job hunting or changing jobs. What motivates you, what do you look for to determine if a job is a good fit, what do you wish you could know when considering a job, what are good experiences you've had, etc? If you share on this I'd also like to know what type of work you do / are interested in.

[edit] Based on the responses below it looks like I should clarify. I'm considering software purchased by employers to manage their recruiting process. It does touch on third party agency recruiting but in a somewhat tangential way.

 

[FelixDeCat]

I want to be the second Tea Party Republican Senator from Texas. I need about $20,000,000.00 to launch a campaign. I have nothing to offer but fiery rhetoric about government spending.

Can you help me?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Be honest. When you place an ad for applicants, say you are a recruiter. When you give no information about the company doing the hiring, say it's because the company requested it and not just because the recruiting company is worried about applicants bypassing them. For the love of God, use more than three sentences to describe your "executive " position. State the salary range. DO NOT use the phrase DOE. While we're on the subject, DO NOT use acronyms or industry buzz words. When contacting a potential candidate, explain YOUR process. Do not pass it off as the hiring company's process unless it actually is. Did I mention, be honest?

 

[AreaCode707]

Be honest. When you place an ad for applicants, say you are a recruiter. When you give no information about the company doing the hiring, say it's because the company requested it and not just because the recruiting company is worried about applicants bypassing them. For the love of God, use more than three sentences to describe your "executive " position. State the salary range. DO NOT use the phrase DOE. While we're on the subject, DO NOT use acronyms or industry buzz words. When contacting a potential candidate, explain YOUR process. Do not pass it off as the hiring company's process unless it actually is. Did I mention, be honest?

So a big part of your frustration comes from third party recruiting agencies and their advertising and business practices, it sounds like? So companies being able to enforce quality standards on the advertising and processes their agencies use might help, and providing tools and training to those agencies, and possibly more information on the source job so the agency can better represent it might help?

 

[Sukhoi]

I get frustrated by companies not being clear on the exact physical location of the job until far into the interview process. There are many jobs I could rule out instantly based on exactly where in a city the company is located, and it would save everyone's time.

 

[postmortemIA]

I had jobs from area code 707. Don't want to move to 1 bedroom studio apartment for a job. That is not a good job.

 

[EagleKeeper]

1) Recruiters that use only key word matching. They do not know anything about the job itself and have not even looked at your resume.

2) Get you to send in paperwork on vapor jobs.

3) Get you to send in paperwork and not let you know of the status.

4) Refuse to advise you of the pay range until at the last moment when you have spent 10-20 minutes with them.

5) Try to sell a $20/hr job to a person with 20 years experience.

6) Ask you to call them and you let them know when or ask for them to call you within a time or day range. Then they are unavailable or do not call.

7) Use of the word preferred/direct/exclusive which mean squat in 99% of the situations.
If you can not tell me the manager's name; they are not a preferred client.
If another recruiter calls me for the same position within a week; it is not exclusive.

8) Refusal to identify the company they are shopping for.

9) Inability to understand that a rate that will work for someone local is not going to cut it if you have to import/relocate

Many of the third/fourth party people have unclear English and a working from home.
Do not get on the phone (cold calling) if you are representing a business and you have children making noise where I can here them.

 

[Shadowknight]

Don't say "I want you to come in to talk about your job search" if someone is applying for a specific position. People who don't know any better are assuming they are actually in the running for a job they applied for. Calling people in for an interview that only leads to being put into the system and never getting a call on a job is just wasting your and their time.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

So a big part of your frustration comes from third party recruiting agencies and their advertising and business practices, it sounds like? So companies being able to enforce quality standards on the advertising and processes their agencies use might help, and providing tools and training to those agencies, and possibly more information on the source job so the agency can better represent it might help?

The information flow needs to work in all directions. The hiring company has a wish list. That list needs to be as detailed as possible. Recruiting companies need to push back on the companies who don't provide it. The recruiting companies need to communicate that wish list to the prospective candidates even if it takes a page and a half. Candidates need to communicate their needs and hopes /goals to recruiters. It currently takes a human to integrate these factors accurately and resume scanning tools are just that. They are NOT the primary decision maker. Companies hire recruiters either because they are too busy or lack the infrastructure to do it themselves (or, not as cheaply they believe) . Above all, companies and recruiters need to stop playing the numbers game. More candidates is not better. Companies need to have a mission and communicate it without using corporate speak. That's true for both hiring companies and recruiters.

 

[Ruptga]

More than anything, I hate apathy and sheer laziness on the part of prospective employers, and that attitude is very common. It's especially obvious when:
- The entire posting is boilerplate, copypasta, or both.
- The posting lacks detail, and/or any detail given is conveyed through buzzwords and lawyer-speak.
- The posting directs me to a boilerplate application form. Boilerplate forms are in no way tailored to the job posting, they are often a catchall for whichever company is hiring, and:
-Because they are so generalized they are stupidly long and detailed, easily taking 30-60 minutes to complete
-They often have a resume datamining feature that is useless.
-Certain fields will only accept certain values and formats, gods help you if that isn't specified and it is a mandatory field.
-Despite being very long applications, they are mostly only good for weeding out applicants that aren't good at padding resumes and paper statistics. They almost never ask for a short paragraph about what I could bring to the company, or do anything else that doesn't fit neatly into a spreadsheet.

The entire process is so weird, because on the one hand it is extremely easy to fling a couple dozen copypasta postings across the internet, and on the other hand it is so hard for companies to actually find employees they actually want. Unless a company's turnover is high and they're basically rubber-stamping every applicant, the pace of hiring is typically glacial. They want the *right* people, they can't afford to spend "all that money" training someone who will just leave in a few months (nevermind that this is an entry-level position anyone with a triple-digit IQ can handle). Despite all that they barely put any effort into their employee search, they want the perfect employee for the cost of fifteen minutes spamming monster and indeed, but they always get what they pay for.

So I said all that to say, companies need to be realistic instead of wasting their time and mine. If they want the top 10% of applicants, they need to make ads/postings, applications, interviews, and offers that are better than 90% of what's out there. If they dgaf and are going to reject every application that doesn't check every box on their spreadsheet, they should say so up front and their application should only deal with what's on their spreadsheet. If they are hiring quickly because their turnover is bad, they shouldn't try to bullshit trainees with precisely worded statements about their promotion policies, mandatory overtime policies, or benefits policies. That stuff will keep people around for the first few weeks, but they will quickly learn the truth from old-timers, get pissed, jump ship, and tell everyone how much your company sucks and is full of crap. It's so much better to tell them straight up and have them leave before you've wasted man-hours training them.

Employees are investments, and in the long run everyone gets what they pay for, there are no weird old tricks or shortcuts that result in net gains.

 

[StrangerGuy]

I'm entirely convinced by now the hiring process of most companies is to cover the asses of the hirers first and picking the correct people second. Everyone likes to say how good their finely tuned hiring process is...In the cases where it works. The cases where it doesn't? Either that never happens or it is always the candidates fault.

Just think about how many close friends that you didn't really like at first glance and douchebags that you like being around at the beginning but ended up seeing their true colors. Common sense dictates you can't judge people solely based on first impressions and non-so-honest self made past histories.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Based on the responses below it looks like I should clarify. I'm considering software purchased by employers to manage their recruiting process. It does touch on third party agency recruiting but in a somewhat tangential way.[/

So, in other words you're dismissing the complaints regarding relying on impersonal software in the hiring process?

 

[Ruptga]

Meh, impersonal software is just a tool. The problems really start when the company thinks the software should handle the majority of the hiring process straight out of the box.

Pick one that is customizable and intuitive, then put in the effort to customize it to the applicants you really want.

 

[DAGTA]

In regards to your edit: as a manager that hires, managing my candidates in a software tool is not my frustration. My biggest frustration is with recruiters. Almost all recruiters have no idea how to sort a good candidate from someone that is BSing in any technical field. As such, my experience is that recruiters are hired simply to be sales people that pressure hiring managers and spam resumes. There is very little filtering. Instead it is the shotgun approach to see what sticks.

I believe the company that figures out how to hire one or two very technical people to screen their candidates before presenting would likely rise to the top in the field and make a bunch of money.

 

[AreaCode707]

Lots of good content so far, thanks! I'm only commenting on areas I want to drill into further; items I haven't commented on are generally good (or common sense/common courtesy where enforcement is the most needed improvement) and I have enough to pursue them without needing more input.

I should also be clear, I'm mostly dealing with the use case of in-house recruiting departments, that actually work for the companies looking to hire. Third party recruiting agencies are part of my scope of interest, but are somewhat tangential.

State the salary range.

• I would assume you're asking after this so you know that you're roughly a level match with the job, correct?
• I think the typical fear is that candidates who would normally be satisfied with $x salary would be dissatisfied if they knew that was $y dollars less than the maximum. If you know the min and max for the range, would you truly accept something at a mid-point or the low end of the range? How would you feel during offer negotiations and after you started if you knew the company wasn't offering you their compensation range top dollar?
• Assuming some people would feel dissatisfied knowing they weren't offered the top end of the range, how would you solve for the original need and avoid introducing dissatisfaction that wouldn't otherwise exist?

Explain YOUR process:

• What is most important to you to know about the recruiting process? How detailed do you want to get? Would you want to be able to see this upfront before even applying? How would you change your behavior based on different things you spotted in the process?

Not being clear on the exact physical location of the job until far into the interview process:

• By this you mean the specific address, right? Generally the only reason I've seen companies reticent about this is because they're either trying to avoid walk-in applicants, since they're not really equipped to properly handle walk-ins, or there's some security concern (angry people who didn't get the job, etc.) Otherwise I frequently see companies interested in representing their exact locations. With walk-in averse or security-conscious companies in mind, how specific does a location need to be for you to get the information you need to inform you about your commute / help you rule out the job?

Recruiters that use only key word matching. They do not know anything about the job itself and have not even looked at your resume.

• I see this splitting into two categories. Recruiters that truly don't know the job / how to match you, and recruiters that do know the job and how to match but are trying to filter through a mega pile of resumes so they can invest time in the best possible fits. Naturally keyword matching is an easy but quite possibly inaccurate way of doing this. What would you suggest as better methods of matching you to a job that would remove the subjectivity of a recruiter and the reliance on their varying skill/knowledge levels? That would remove the fallacious assumption that people who are good resume-writers are probably the best people for the job?
• How do you feel about resumes as an accurate representation of yourself in general? What do you wish you could communicate to the folks in charge of hiring that you can never properly represent in a resume?

Don't say "I want you to come in to talk about your job search" if someone is applying for a specific position. People who don't know any better are assuming they are actually in the running for a job they applied for. Calling people in for an interview that only leads to being put into the system and never getting a call on a job is just wasting your and their time.

• What about the situation where that chat with a recruiter does eventually lead to a job later on, even though it wasn't about a specific job to begin with? Not every contact can lead to a job since you aren't going to be a fit for everything - how much time are you willing to invest in the prospect of a job without having an existing opening ready to go?
• Does your answer change depending on the desirability of the company itself? (That is, would you spend 20 minutes talking to Google about your general employment interests where you would not talk to little nothing company down the street?)
• What if there's no job open right now but the company knows they'll be hiring 300 people like you in the next 12 months; do you need to know that fact to make it worth your time? What else would you need to know?

It currently takes a human to integrate these factors accurately:

• How much time will you spend ensuring your possible match to a job when you're out searching? Are you scanning a job description and sending in a resume or are you willing to invest more than a few minutes in considering all the intricacies of a role if you could really dig in and poke around to a lot of detail about it?
• What are the reasons you would typically take yourself out of the running for a job, other than salary and location? Where's the cut off for a job that's too low level / too high level, and what do you look at to determine that?

The posting directs me to a boilerplate application form:

• What kind of information would you want to provide at this point that you think would truly help the company know your worth relative to the specific job you're interested in?

Easily taking 30-60 minutes to complete:

• What's your cutoff threshold for how much time you're willing to spend?
• There's a tradeoff here, a bit, between how much the company learns about you and how well they can target you for this and future jobs. Companies don't just want to consider you for the job you apply for; if you're good they want to consider you for all the jobs you would be fantastic at.I've never seen a good balance struck. Unstructured data like resumes is easiest for candidates, structured data with as much detail as candidates will tolerate inputting is best for employers (if they are willing to commit to really putting structured data in for their job openings this helps point to point matching and allowing recruiters to consider and respond to the best candidates fastest), and this is perhaps one of the biggest issues in this type of software. How else would you approach this issue, bearing in mind the limitation that there are not enough human beings available to actually thoroughly and thoughtfully read and discern unstructured information for every applicant?

Common sense dictates you can't judge people solely based on first impressions and non-so-honest self made past histories:

• True true true! So what can you judge people on that helps truly connect people with jobs in which they will be successful and happy?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Meh, impersonal software is just a tool. The problems really start when the company thinks the software should handle the majority of the hiring process straight out of the box.

Pick one that is customizable and intuitive, then put in the effort to customize it to the applicants you really want.

Cmon, you know how it works. Company lays out big bucks for software package and then training for it consists of an email stating it's now policy for everyone to use it. Oh, and don't forget the big bonus for the guy who recommended it. Never mind that two years from now any objective review of the software and it's implementation will show it to have cost the company thousands and thousands without being any more effective than the current situation. But hey, the guy who suggested it will have his bonus and be long gone. It's the American dream.

 

[AreaCode707]

So, in other words you're dismissing the complaints regarding relying on impersonal software in the hiring process?

Nope, not at all. I was just taking a little longer to write up my questions to dig deeper. Keep giving input on third party agency issues too; I just would also like to hear thoughts about direct hiring practices too.

 

[AreaCode707]

Pick [a software] that is customizable and intuitive, then put in the effort to customize it to the applicants you really want.

• How would you define "applicants you really want"?

Almost all recruiters have no idea how to sort a good candidate from someone that is BSing in any technical field.

• When you are sorting the sheep from the goats, so to speak, what methods do you use? What questions do you ask? What problems do you present to them to work through, and what are you observing in their responses that gives them away?

 

[Shadowknight]

Don't say "I want you to come in to talk about your job search" if someone is applying for a specific position. People who don't know any better are assuming they are actually in the running for a job they applied for. Calling people in for an interview that only leads to being put into the system and never getting a call on a job is just wasting your and their time.

• What about the situation where that chat with a recruiter does eventually lead to a job later on, even though it wasn't about a specific job to begin with? Not every contact can lead to a job since you aren't going to be a fit for everything - how much time are you willing to invest in the prospect of a job without having an existing opening ready to go?
• Does your answer change depending on the desirability of the company itself? (That is, would you spend 20 minutes talking to Google about your general employment interests where you would not talk to little nothing company down the street?)
• What if there's no job open right now but the company knows they'll be hiring 300 people like you in the next 12 months; do you need to know that fact to make it worth your time? What else would you need to know?

I'm really referring to specific contacts from a recruiter about a job you applied for, not individual companies doing direct-hire. Bringing someone in to be put in the system for a possible future position ii fine... as long as you are CLEAR on that ON THE PHONE. Don't misrepresent or be vague so they think they come in for a specific job, only to be told they have no chance. Joining a temp agency can be fine, as long as it's not "bait and switch".

 

[Engineer]

Can you get recruiters to quit calling me?

 

[SunnyD]

Resume farming and keyword matching... fuck no.

Take 5 minutes to READ the god damn resume/database entry before you send out your job lead email to a potential candidate that your database matched. I can't tell you how many times I've outright ignored job leads simply because they're for a relevant skill set I have little experience in in my field. Sadly, it's a fairly popular skill set, but one I have no interest in pursuing.

Location location location. I have explicitly ruled out certain locations, and yet I continually get recruitment requests from those very locations.

"... or if you know anybody that would be interested in this position ..." Not gonna happen.

Can you get recruiters to quit calling me?

That'll happen as soon as you NEED to find a new job.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I haven't read this thread so someone may have covered the point I'm about to make. However, my #1 pet peeve, BAR NONE, is going to a major job site (CareerBuilder, Dice, Monster, whatever), submitting my profile for a job, and THEN being redirected to the company's own job site and having to build a completely new profile for the job. It is a waste of my time and I skip those jobs.

 

[DAGTA]

• When you are sorting the sheep from the goats, so to speak, what methods do you use? What questions do you ask? What problems do you present to them to work through, and what are you observing in their responses that gives them away?

Technical questions related to the job. If someone is submitted as a Senior C# / ASP.Net developer looking for a six figure salary, I would expect that person to be able to answer most technical questions that are asked. I have had several candidates that cannot explain junior to mid level questions, but are seeking high level salaries and have recruiters presenting them as 'awesome'.

If an agency wants to market as being able to place technical people with a strong success rate, that agency needs some way to filter the technical knowledge.

 

[AreaCode707]

Just boiling down a lot of the comments so far, the million dollar question is (as it always is):

How do you accurately match people to jobs where:

• there isn't enough manpower to manually review every submission
• even if there was, the manpower may be insufficiently knowledgeable
• the right person may not be a good resume writer, or content shown on a resume may not be very predictive about the person's possible success in the job
• you don't require massive time investment from the candidate to do granular data entry

 

[AreaCode707]

Technical questions related to the job. If someone is submitted as a Senior C# / ASP.Net developer looking for a six figure salary, I would expect that person to be able to answer most technical questions that are asked. I have had several candidates that cannot explain junior to mid level questions, but are seeking high level salaries and have recruiters presenting them as 'awesome'.

If an agency wants to market as being able to place technical people with a strong success rate, that agency needs some way to filter the technical knowledge.

How much prep and planning do you put into those questions/discussions ahead of time? Or do you wing it and the conversation evolves naturally along whatever channels it takes and you learn what you need from there? Do you re-use the same questions repeatedly? Do you have these candidates do any hands on exercises to assess their real capabilities?