From the outside, you just don't know. Very unfortunate because it creates hope for people who, in some cases, don't have any chance.
I think that the reason it is so asymmetric is because the normal company runs on multiple employees, which means that if they can't find one more person right now business still continues.
But the normal person only has time for one job, which means if they can't find one, they go hungry (so to speak).
The desire for employment is asymmetric and therefore the power accrues to the party with less desire.
Well the company can only accept 1 person for the position, whereas you are most likely willing to accept a position at a number of different companies, so there's an inherent asymmetry there, no?
Ideally, the company should only push onerous application processes to applications once the list has been whittled down a bit, or only push them in cases where the results will actually be reviewed.
Of course then not actually looking at the applications is a violation of at least the spirit of the law. Sometimes also the letter.
Resume submission systems are never good. Always always opt to send directly to a real email address (like in the who's hiring HN threads).
Rather than going through this ordeal I'd prefer if they reject resume directly.
Come to think of it, I know of several examples(startups) where the company was actually failing and about to run out of money and they still advertised but couldn't possibly hire. In my opinion, that's purposefully wasting people's time.
ANd yes, it is a huge waste of time.
I'm not sure if this is laziness or what. But it does tell me that they don't care very much.
Step 1. Put in 300+ applications (200+ in Nor Cal Central Valley area, 178 in PHX area)
Step 2. Wait for responses and get a 2% response rate in Nor Cal/central valley, and a 17% response rate in PHX...with the exact same resume despite being top 25% of the class, extra curriculars, and having a decent econ degree)
Step 3. Of 90% of the places and recruiters that contact they will either A. Pay you substandard wages, B. Make it clear that you are replaceable and they don't actually care about workers or work/life balance, C. Ghost you after contacting and interviewing you or D. Some combo of the above.
The worst one I've had is the same corporate recruiter lie to me multiple times over a part time job with no benefits, who brought me in for an interview that made it clear that they had no quality control, no work life balance, poor workplace communication, and expected workers to be treated like crap and be OK with it, oh and the best part is, that company was a major household brand that does $5bn in revenue annually.
So yeah, I've had recruiters treat me like crap, tell me I'm worthless, and companies string me along, while I'm trying to scrape by and eat...not that I've got a chip on my shoulder about the entitled attitudes that are represented by this comment on HN.
Suppose you're happy where you are now but an opportunity comes by which sounds good so you start talking to them. They're super flakey. Wouldn't you just say "screw it"?
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 a fit, I'd reject them, and say why I didn't think it'd a match. Usually if I heard back, it was simply to say thank you for acknowledging them. For one position, I was recruiting a CTO. I rejected one Craigslist sourced applicant, and gave him reasons why he didn't fit the CEO's list of filtering bullet points. He responded with information that flipped him from a no to a yes, he got the interview, and eventually got the job!
The CEO was kind of cheap, and didn't want to pay a retained search firm. I was working on a part time contract at an hourly rate, so he asked me to take a crack at the CTO position. I tried filling the CTO role like I filled every other role, by starting with an ad on Craigslist, and it worked out.
I read that a lot of people don't do this because they are afraid of $RANDOM lawsuit.
First, if you don't push back on "young", you're asking for trouble right from the start. You gotta say, "I can't screen based on age, that's going to get both of us in trouble." The second a not-too-bright recruiter says, "I can't hire you, you're too old", everyone loses. So don't get yourself into a position where you're screening for young in the first place. It's fair to ask the hiring manager why they want a young person, and it may simply be that the job isn't something anyone with real experience would tolerate. Then you can describe the job in such a way that it highlights the requirements for someone at that level... "We work hard, day and night, to ship stuff as fast as possible, fueled by Mountain Dew and dreams of glorious stock options."
Once you've craft a job pitch that only someone who wants to work day and night would apply to, if a more experienced person applies to the job, you can reject them by focusing on the culture... "Hey, I don't think you'd be a fit here. Your skills look great, we'd love to have you, but do you really wanna work 70 hours a week? We're an adrenaline fueled sweat shop, and you've been at a cushy B2B SaaS company for a few years. If I'm wrong, let me know!"
Here's an extreme example. I rejected a candidate, and felt bad for him. I gave a specific reason why he'd never get the job. A few hours later, he showed up in the lobby of our office building, coked out of his mind (that's what it looked and felt like, but he was probably just intensely upset). He started demanding to see HR. Shit went from chill to super uncomfortable in 0 seconds flat. I walked up to him, suggested he leave, at which point he realized I'm twice his size, and he departed. Yikes!
I stopped giving invalid rejection explanations after that. It's just not worth it, and that's part of living in the world that sucks more than I'd like it to.
They usually don't. The same reasons apply. In Europe there's less fear about random lawsuits, but there are so many rules about hiring that it's just a minefield with lots of material for very legitimate lawsuits. You didn't get the impression that the applicant is a good culture fit? You better hope his name didn't sound Turkish, or that quickly sounds like unlawful discrimination.
We're sorry but we have decided not to go forward with your application at the present time. We will keep your CV on file for 6 months in case our needs change. Best of luck in your future endeavors.
Funny enough, after landing an even better gig, I randomly got contacted by one of their recruiters on LinkedIn asking if I would be interested in the opportunity they were still hiring for. No mention of the fact that I had already applied and never heard back.
One day I saw them complaining in a major magazine about not finding anyone, and I not only reapplied but wrote an almost angry email detailing past attempts.
They did their best this time, I talked to their team almost daily for almost 2 weeks setting all up... and then they complained I didn't had experience in that particular job title.
I explained that noone local had that experience, they were the first company in the country with that particular position open...
Then the HR guy apologized so much I felt sorry for him, and he explained it was company policy that the job required experience, and another policy required locals only...
So policy for the win?
If you do send a rejection letter, at least make sure it has proper grammar and spelling, and please send it within, idk, 6 months?
I have gotten some amazing rejection letters, but only after an interview. These are well-thought out, globally applicable to all rejections, and directly show why I wasn't a good fit. In sum, they were impossible to argue with. I've only received a handful of these, but they were worth keeping around for inspiration.
However, let's switch modes.
Please suggest your solution for the problem of receiving 1,874 resumes for a job posting and, 42 days later, finding your likely candidate on the 244th candidate you reviewed.
I feel like such an automated approach is roundly criticized by HN on a regular basis.
I guess my point is that when you're dealing with this, there are no popular solutions.
Un-networked job seekers need thick skin.
If the job is in fact unimportant, stop pretending like its the bloody presidency and accept candidates who can be trained into it immediately.
This is completely unfair. GP is not an HR professional by any indication. If your accountant says your website looks ugly, do you hire them as your designer?
Anything else is just complaining.
I don't need to know the minutia of a specific field before I can criticize and suggest alternatives.
An accountant does not need to know node before offering comments on site usability, feel, performance. Nobody is hiring them to execute a redesign. They're asking them for an idea on how to improve.
When you get a successful candidate automatically inform everyone else still in the running that the position has been filled.
What's the hard part?
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 of people are happy to just chat for 30min, and you might get a few pointers on where to look for what you want. The worst case outcome is that you meet someone new, and talk about things you find mutually interesting for a little while.
Only one person's story ofc, but I'm happy! Face to face stuff is so much more valuable than submitting online forms, and tech meetups are stimulating, fun, and pretty common in cities.
If you have nothing interesting to say you ought to find something- if you're unemployed you must have a lot of time on your hands.
With luck, one of them will be in a company or organization you want to apply to.
Hiring is an expensive process by any measure. But whenever we find a shortcut we have to be mindful of unintended consequences
Edit: I guess "black holed" isn't the right term since I did get an interview but you know what I mean
Basically, you are talking, you both like each other and then suddenly you don't hear from the other person.
I had a few companies ghost me and it was annoying.
I don't entirely mind if I apply and just never hear back, I just get to laugh at them when they email me two months later asking for interview.
If someone does it to me I tend to lose some respect, but that's possibly because I'm an outsider. Maybe Californians expect that but I usually hope for the respect of a direct no. (Shrug.)
If you want to make the HR person extremely angry then feign interest and you've ruined their whole H1B process. Its kinda funny to do. Sometimes they'll slam the phone down or sound like they're about to cry. If they're made of sterner stuff you'll get requirements like an in person interview at 4am or an interview within the hour in person (for a job 100 miles away).
It is terrible for the others in the lineup since they have 1. wasted a day 2. have hope for something where this is no hope 3. possibly hold off on other opportunities waiting for an opportunity that doesn't exist.
E.g. Hi X, Thanks for taking the time to interview me, blah blah blah, ... next steps?