How crazy the whole job hunting thing is
Page 1 of 1 [ 4 posts ]
AardvarkGoodSwimmer
Veteran
Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,665
Location: Houston, Texas
28 Mar 2013, 2:34 pm
Quote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162- ... ck-to-you/
Nothing personal: Why recruiters don't get back to you
Suzanne Lucas, CBS MoneyWatch, March 25, 2013
If you've been on the job hunt in the last few years, probably more than once you've cleared your schedule, taken a vacation day or hunted down a last minute babysitter in order to attend an interview. Everything seems to go well, but you never hear from the recruiter again. Ever. Not only do you not get the job, you never hear anything from the company and sometimes your calls and emails are not returned at all.
I find this appalling behavior, and have written extensively on how this is unacceptable behavior. I've challenged recruiters to justify their behavior and finally got a response from a former large company recruiter, on the condition that he remain anonymous. His job was going well, he wrote, until there was a reduction in force, which cut HR staff and added additional responsibilities to the staffing department. He has since moved to another HR position. Here is his account:
======================================================
'"Days to fill" became the defining performance metric (excuses for why some positions were harder to fill than others such as location, or the job having the wrong pay, were considered irrelevant).
'In addition to recruiting, recruiters are responsible for background checks, drug screening and all other onboarding processes. Each recruiter had around 15 people onboarding at a time (on top of 60 open positions). Keep in mind that recruiters are hired for their sociability/energy levels more so than their ability to be organized... so, there were recruiters trying to keep track of where each new hire was on dozens of sticky notes (and even in one case napkins). Organization and detail orientation was not their strong suit.
'Recruiters were also hiring for positions that they knew nothing about (i.e. recruiters that knew nothing about IT were phone screening Senior Technical Analysts and Computer Programmers in 30 minute conversations that determined who was flown in from around the country for face to face interviews with hiring managers). Requisition loads nearly tripled to an average of around 65 (with highs of 85 open positions).'
.
.
.
'Everyone was overworked, not adequately trained to do their jobs, and they'd just seen some of their closest co-workers fired. So, they started showing up at 8am, leaving at 4:30pm, focusing strictly on days to fill and letting everything else suffer. Recruiter turnover was through the roof.
'Once a position went over 45 "days to fill" your manager sat down with you to "counsel" you on how you could improve your performance. At 60 days there were daily calls with your manager to discuss the position and how to fill it quickly...keep in mind these were for recruiters sourcing positions they knew nothing about.
'The department took a credibility hit as managers spent several hundred of dollars flying candidates in for interviews only to quickly asses the candidate was an awful fit. In the past recruiters understood the jobs they sourced... the new normal had changed this dynamic, and so recruiters eventually went from being "Business Partners" to note takers/phone screeners.
'Recruiters invented "tricks" to fool the system into stopping the "days to fill" clock. They would un-post positions they couldn't get to for the day -- because if a position wasn't posted to the company website it didn't count against days to fill. They just hoped they didn't get caught. They would negotiate closing and re-opening positions as new (thus resetting the clock) if the manager wanted to make a minor tweak to the job description. It's a new job, they would say.
'Leadership wanted low days to fill, so low days to fill is what they got.'
.
.
.
'Recruiting turnover (not just at my company) is insanely high in the U.S. for many reasons. One of them is that most managers don't really understand what goes into recruiting, and subsequently undervalue the emotional capital and relationship building that is part of sourcing strong candidates.
'Instead they focus on the sorts of metrics they can bring to the board of directors (turnover, days to fill, average cost of hire etc.) and design the performance metrics of the recruiters jobs around these criteria.'
======================================================
And that is why, even after you've been interviewed, you never hear back from recruiters.
Nothing personal: Why recruiters don't get back to you
Suzanne Lucas, CBS MoneyWatch, March 25, 2013
If you've been on the job hunt in the last few years, probably more than once you've cleared your schedule, taken a vacation day or hunted down a last minute babysitter in order to attend an interview. Everything seems to go well, but you never hear from the recruiter again. Ever. Not only do you not get the job, you never hear anything from the company and sometimes your calls and emails are not returned at all.
I find this appalling behavior, and have written extensively on how this is unacceptable behavior. I've challenged recruiters to justify their behavior and finally got a response from a former large company recruiter, on the condition that he remain anonymous. His job was going well, he wrote, until there was a reduction in force, which cut HR staff and added additional responsibilities to the staffing department. He has since moved to another HR position. Here is his account:
======================================================
'"Days to fill" became the defining performance metric (excuses for why some positions were harder to fill than others such as location, or the job having the wrong pay, were considered irrelevant).
'In addition to recruiting, recruiters are responsible for background checks, drug screening and all other onboarding processes. Each recruiter had around 15 people onboarding at a time (on top of 60 open positions). Keep in mind that recruiters are hired for their sociability/energy levels more so than their ability to be organized... so, there were recruiters trying to keep track of where each new hire was on dozens of sticky notes (and even in one case napkins). Organization and detail orientation was not their strong suit.
'Recruiters were also hiring for positions that they knew nothing about (i.e. recruiters that knew nothing about IT were phone screening Senior Technical Analysts and Computer Programmers in 30 minute conversations that determined who was flown in from around the country for face to face interviews with hiring managers). Requisition loads nearly tripled to an average of around 65 (with highs of 85 open positions).'
.
.
.
'Everyone was overworked, not adequately trained to do their jobs, and they'd just seen some of their closest co-workers fired. So, they started showing up at 8am, leaving at 4:30pm, focusing strictly on days to fill and letting everything else suffer. Recruiter turnover was through the roof.
'Once a position went over 45 "days to fill" your manager sat down with you to "counsel" you on how you could improve your performance. At 60 days there were daily calls with your manager to discuss the position and how to fill it quickly...keep in mind these were for recruiters sourcing positions they knew nothing about.
'The department took a credibility hit as managers spent several hundred of dollars flying candidates in for interviews only to quickly asses the candidate was an awful fit. In the past recruiters understood the jobs they sourced... the new normal had changed this dynamic, and so recruiters eventually went from being "Business Partners" to note takers/phone screeners.
'Recruiters invented "tricks" to fool the system into stopping the "days to fill" clock. They would un-post positions they couldn't get to for the day -- because if a position wasn't posted to the company website it didn't count against days to fill. They just hoped they didn't get caught. They would negotiate closing and re-opening positions as new (thus resetting the clock) if the manager wanted to make a minor tweak to the job description. It's a new job, they would say.
'Leadership wanted low days to fill, so low days to fill is what they got.'
.
.
.
'Recruiting turnover (not just at my company) is insanely high in the U.S. for many reasons. One of them is that most managers don't really understand what goes into recruiting, and subsequently undervalue the emotional capital and relationship building that is part of sourcing strong candidates.
'Instead they focus on the sorts of metrics they can bring to the board of directors (turnover, days to fill, average cost of hire etc.) and design the performance metrics of the recruiters jobs around these criteria.'
======================================================
And that is why, even after you've been interviewed, you never hear back from recruiters.
And notice the part in the next to last italicized paragraph, the part about "sourcing strong candidates." This is cherry picking. And a person on the spectrum like myself with a patchy job history is probably not going to be considered a "strong candidate." And so, even when the guy is trying to do the job well and has the time to do the job well, I'm not likely to benefit.
From 1998 to 2000, I both went back to school to learn C++ programming and did a lot of programming on my own. And the combination worked very well, and I felt I learned a lot. (although in a one semester work internship, I had this terrible abusive manager) Yes, I could have done things differently. But I felt I did a lot of things right. As I looked for a job, it really seemed like these HR people focused almost exclusively on years of corporate experience. The fact that I had a portfolio of programs I could show and could field technical questions, didn't seem to matter. Of course it didn't. I was talking to nontechnical people. Now, the interesting thing is that I'm kind of a language arts / story / narrative type of aspie and I approached computer programs almost like screenplays with a beginning, middle, and end. But I learned enough of the technical details for the programs to work. And every so often, such as when I used pseudorandom numbers to explore questions in probability, the programs even seemed to dance.
---------
Now, there are skills to be learned to negotiate through this system. For example, do what you need to do to find the name and phone number of the actual hiring manager, and in the brief phone call (which may or may not go well) ask, "I've already sent HR a copy of my resume. May I send you a copy also?" That way, you are not asking the person to go around HR. You are more asking him or her to work with the existing process.*
*An older aerospace guy told me this. As far as me personally, I became a waiter in a restaurant. Then I went into professional furniture sales, which is better than it sounds. I never got to work as a computer programmer.
28 Mar 2013, 5:01 pm
Going through that stuff. If even i get a phone screening, it goes nowhere past that. And the phone screenings were asking illegal questions which had nothing to do with qualifications or job description, particularly asking my marital status in more that a few of those.
Most frustrating if that those are the only areas i ever hear anything back as all my other resumes/applications get me a form letter/e-mail dismissing me, or much more likely, no reply at all.
28 Mar 2013, 6:59 pm
HR is terrible. Making contacts and dealing directly with people is the best way to get a good job. This is especially true if you're a bit different because you will have a hard time passing their ideal candidate checklist in interviews. This is even more true if you're applying for a technical job. You're much more likely to get along with your potential boss than an HR person, and they're much more likely to recognise your skills and make exceptions.
AardvarkGoodSwimmer
Veteran
Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,665
Location: Houston, Texas
30 Mar 2013, 3:37 pm
ghoti wrote:
. . . And the phone screenings were asking illegal questions which had nothing to do with qualifications or job description, particularly asking my marital status in more that a few of those. . .
Very unprofessional, by people who obviously should know better.
Maybe it's kind of a power trip by people bored with their job. Maybe they're trying to feel you out for a sales pitch about relocating in order to fill a hard to fill job. Maybe in some cases the person gets stuck and recourses to this most stereotypical of questions.
Whatever the cause, I think it's okay to briefly pause, and then repeat the question, "What is my marital status?" which will also give you a chance to think.
And then it's probably okay to take it in your choice of a couple of different directions. I think it's okay to actually have a little sport and give an outlandish answer and then say, "Alright, next question." (whether this is a good strategic move is another question) I think it's also okay to matter-of-factly challenge the person, perhaps with "Do you really want to be asking my marital status during a professional job interview?" and hopefully the person will recover and get back on track (again, may not be the best strategic move). And maybe other people have additional solutions.
And the amazing thing is that HR sells itself---'Oh, My God, you have to be so careful or people will sue!'---on this very thing. I mean, in my opinion HR has been very successful at turf building and turf defending by taking a kernel of valid legal concerns and exaggerating them. And then . . . it turns out they're not very skillful! They're not even kind of respectful people.
===============
If I was rich I think I might hire someone to help me find a job, and I don't mean just giving me advice, I mean doing much of the leg work. (of course, the self-reflexive question of why would I need a job if I was rich) So, for those of us on the Spectrum can we have self-advocacy group(s), and also volunteer and networking groups, which can help me and other people? Yes, potentially, but it will probably take some experimenting and we may not get it right the first time.
