There are thousands of CVs per opening in some companies, how do you expect people who barely have time to read the CVs to also give individual feedback ?
I can’t tell if this question is just a statement about the impossibility of the situation or a genuine ask.
We should expect more professional courtesy and human decency for our peers than what typical application processes provide today. It help make candidates identify weaknesses and collectively improve our field.
Perhaps creativity or persistence will help us solve this difficult problem but we won’t get there if we write it off as a fact of life.
Sadly, if incentives aren't aligned, I'm of the opinion not much will change.
Let's suppose there were a no liability clause for employers when giving feedback, they could say we didn't hire you because we didn't like you or because you were too short, or whatever they wanted. In that case, companies could tell the truth and would have nothing to lose. However, the question would remain - what do they have to gain? To this end, if an applicant could purchase a feedback review, then companies would have something to gain as well.
I'm not saying we should do any of this, I'm just trying to sketch a scenario in which some systematic rules exist which might get both parties to be more aligned on "giving true detailed feedback".
>> It help make candidates identify weaknesses and collectively improve our field.
Actually, and this will sound wrong, but it won't.
Let's say the worker pool is 1000 candidates. If I give them sll advice, and they take it, I still have 1000 candidates to choose from. It's just harder since they're all better.
On the other hand the resume that contains spelling errors is easy to just discard (low attention to detail.) I don't want someone else to gave told them, I'm trying to find people who have attention to detail without being told.
Failing that I'm looking for people with some initiative. Perhaps someone who has recruited friends, family or even a service to run mock interviews and provide feedback.
Of course resumes are terrible starting points for job applications. You send out thousands, I get thousands. How might you take that knowledge to better stand out from the crowd?
Here's my answer to the original poster; we don't give feedback because of the legal and incentive reasons others have highlighted.
Recognizing this fact, what then is your next step? Instead of being a passive participant in the process, what might you do to stand out from the crowd? What might you do differently to the herd?
Things I have done to stand out from the crowd seem weird because I have to guess as to who I should even start with, often through tools such as LinkedIn Pro or finding contact information through GitHub repos. Many of the application processes are similar and use the same provider to serve them (Workday, etc). When an org does acknowledge your submission, it is often from noreply@org.tld, and there is no HR contact information publicly listed.
If you are a hiring manager, what are some things you have seen that you though took some initiative, but also couldn't be seen as crummy?
Availability is trickier than scalability. An async replica can lose a few recent writes during a failover, and a synchronous replica is safer but slower. A company using some platform might not even know which one they're using until it bites them.
99.9% of companies also aren't going to feel the performance difference of synchronous replication.
That being said, the setups I typically see don't even go that far. Most companies don't mitigate for the database going down in the first place. If the db goes down they just eat the downtime and fix it.
> 1.) Scope and headcount. It's really all about headcount - that is the qualification for being a Director. Increased scope is how you get the headcount.
Scope != headcount, in matrix orgs (like big tech) there are directors with very small orgs (5-10 people)
But you typically don't get to be a director with an org of 5-10 people, at least not in engineering, which OP indicated he's in. (It's different in other functions. PM/UX directors frequently have 10-15 people under them, and my wife is a deputy director in finance and has 2 reports. Her boss is the director and has 3 indirects, just her and her reports. I joke that their management chain really is a chain. Startups are also different - I once interviewed for a VP role at a startup that had 8 employees.)
For that promotion to director, you usually need at least 50 reports and at least 2 levels of management. And then the span of responsibility for (senior) director goes on up to about 500 reports. It's not unusual to have directors with less than that - but usually that is because they once had a big org, their scope and responsibility decreased in some re-org, but upper management is keeping them around so they have a deep leadership bench. Another re-org and they can easily end up with 500+ people again.
Well I got to director in big tech with an org about 35 people and now I have around 15 people but bigger scope, and others have done with similar numbers too. Depends on the culture I guess, some cultures are all about empire building, others about impact / scope
Why do you think time or your management experience would put you in path on director instead of others ? This question is very hard to answer without a lot of context. The TLDR is that you haven't been performing at director level or there's no need for another director in the org you are in
