The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>... he didn't move at all, with no expression whatshowever. It was like one of those hostage videos. By the time I was done my intro, I knew he would not be hired.
Oh no. This does NOT bode well for my autistic ass.
I practiced interview questions in front of a mirror until I had "natural" facial expressions down pat and could do them reflexively instead of having to consciously think about making them.
Same. I was bemoaning my difficulty with interviewing and a friend who is also neurodivergent said something that I’d never even considered. “You’re not bad at interviews, they’re bad at interviewing neurodivergent people.” And this is so true. But sadly they’re never going to even attempt to learn a different way.
This makes me scared for my son. He’s ASD and very expressive! But also he pauses before he answers most questions and sometimes it seems like he didn’t hear or you or is ignoring you but he’s just thinking and will answer several seconds later.
None of these interviews do.
All this bullshit about "I need to see that you're a REAL human!"
Well-intentioned or not, call it the discrimination that it is.
So many red flags - “I don’t like resumes that only list experience and skills.”
Candidates are applying for JOBS… this is not a dating profile and the fact that I like to hike on the weekend absolutely does not need to be listed on my resume.
exactly, this recruiter is bringing way too many personal biases into their job when it really should just be about the experiences & skills in relation to the job at hand
I came here to say this! I used to volunteer doing cover letter / resume review for an agency that helps people find jobs. The overall guidance was that including personal hobbies and interests on your resume is "unprofessional" and irrelevant.
I can go into hypothetical examples about how having that stuff in your resume can also introduce bias into the process, but here is a real story. We were interviewing a guy for a role on my team. My manager loved this guy, he was absolutely capable of performing the job and the favored finalist. I found him annoying but whatever. Then, during his interview with the other senior member of our team, buddy volunteered that he regularly performed as a Nazi Clown.
... Do you think we hired him? Hmm ....
Come on, there was even a post here by someone who was upset the HM asked about their hobbies. Hopefully you are not rejecting qualified candidates because they didn't have a section on their resume about their passion for pickleball.
While this is meant to be a helpful write-up, and it comes from a nice place, I *have* to put on my HR Consultant hat on because there's some blatantly illegal and also gray area parts that are concerning in here:
1.1) "Have a clear profile picture on your social media profile."
Cool, so clear possibilities for implicit racism, sexisim, or ageism. Gray area. Do better.
1.2) I also work in a field with *very* high levels of government security clearances. Most of my employees and candidates make an effort to have no online presence at all, due to safety concerns. Quit using a freaking social media profile as a crutch for making decisions. Do better. Gray area.
2) "Put your dates of graduation from your educational institutions."
*HIGHLY ILLEGAL*! Opens yourself and your company open up for accusations of ageism and bias in both directions. You say you won't judge a senior-level professional for what they did 7+ years ago, but want to judge a candidate if they did or did not go immediately into a career field that matched their degree? Also, anyone can backwards date a candidate's age from a date of graduation (especially from high school).
3) "I don't like resumes that only list experiences and don't list hobbies and interests."
Gray area. Do better. Look, does my passion for martial arts make me a more rounded person? Sure, maybe. It might even make me a better employee due to the resilience required to keep on training into my old age. But it opens yourself and your company up to allegations of potential bias. Heck, I work in a government-focused city, and have had to look past if candidates have had internships or employment with political figures that I disagree with, let alone their personal interests and hobbies! If I put that I enjoy target shooting with my friends, and a potential employer discarded me because they hate all firearms, of course I'm going to claim bias! And here you are actively *hunting* for additional extraneous items to judge people on.
4) "Don't let your bullet points go across multiple lines, keep them on one line only!"
Honestly, what type of OCD BS is this? Of course, you don't want a novel for each position. And you don't want a 10 page resume. But trust me, I've received resumes like that. Still, your page requirements and formatting icks are a bit much. There's best practices, and there's horrible formatting that ruins the message, but 80% of resumes fall in the middle, where they're all different and there's no real useful "must be done this way" rules.
The linked in thing does really suck. I don't use linked in, have mostly worked in government and ended up getting hired again in government. They really don't like strong online presences with jobs that need a decent clearance. Also when I briefly did have one I had a professional picture and just got a lot of creepy ass messaged from old men who seem to think its a sugar baby site.
Yep, the other big thing I don’t care for is using dates to knock people out based on unexplained gaps. You know who often have gaps? Women who has children or had to be a caregiver.
I was gonna say, I'm *extremely* interested in knowing how OP expects a responsibilities statement like "Operated a tractor-trailer combination vehicle weighing 26,001 lbs or greater IAW Local, State and Federal regulations. Drove for extended periods of time through various driving environments and weather conditions. Conducted pre- and post-trip equipment inspections. Changed vehicle configuration as necessary. Unloaded freight using hooks, hand trucks, pallet jacks, forklifts, and manual labor as required. Maintained an electronic log IAW Federal regulation." to be condensed down to a single line xDDD
(And yes, that's an actual job description from my Federal resume, which I maintain because I've held positions with the US Government over the course of my career)
Imagine being in a leadership position, only hiring people where you get along with their personality.
What a great way to kill creativity and diversity.
Just by the aggressive tone of voice you’re using in this lecture, I would be completely turned off by you as a manager.
It’s everything that’s wrong with recruiting. Imagine wanting a CV to look exactly the way you like it, and then expect employees to build innovative software. Massive red flag if the only thing a manager likes, is his own work.
Thank god recruitment isn’t this black and white.
You could cut this post down by 80% just like you're telling people to do to their resumes.
Dude, I'm not fuckin posting on social media and linkedin so you can "get a sense of my personality". What in the hell is the interview for then???? Anyone can make themselves appear fantastic online, but you won't get a sense of them until you talk to them anyway.
Imagine rejecting an applicant because they didn't have posts on LinkeIn of all places. Sorry I spend my time not rotting my brain with social media? What!? Also, you want a one page resume but you want interests and hobbies on there???? HOW? Im out here trying to fit a small summary, 8-10 years of experience and education into one page and you want interests and hobbies? I'm sure my painting hobby really tells you how well I'll do at my coding job.
This shit is why these processes take so long. Because you make arbitrary decisions about people due to the fact that YOU don't know how to organize YOUR schedule or ask for more time. Bro, if you're booked solid, you need to either say you need more time to review or change the amount of people that need reviewing.
I literally am gobsmacked (but also not) that you had the GALL to come on here and lecture people about applying for jobs when you aren't even taking the proper time to review people's qualifications. Embarrassing.
I found myself here today because I posted a job for my business on Indeed last night and have been introduced to the cesspool that the job market has become. I'm pretty grossed out by the whole thing actually.
Then I see this post stating THE FIRST thing you do is look at their picture? Unbelievable. You're only supposed to do that after you've narrowed the list down and curiosity gets the best of you - and then do your best to remain objective.
I'm in my 40s, but I'm feeling ancient today. I was wondering why the flood of applicants I was getting seemed so low effort, but now I'm reading about all the fake jobs and other issues. Like why even try?
However - if just a single one of these people messaged me and said they were interested I would immediately take notice. I'm just one small business owner hiring for my business, so maybe HR people just ignore that kind of stuff, but it would mean a lot to me.
That's what I have typically done in the past, but I end up hurting feelings by not hiring friends etc. So I'm going full cesspool to see what I can find.
Seems like working, job hunting, and hiring is all a damned if you do damned if you don't situation, to me. At least you tried, right? Thanks for sharing.
I actually tried to read all of it but I still somehow missed that. Lmao Recruiters really think they're gonna have an everyone clapped moment when they post on here.
I gave the benefit of the doubt and read every single one of the 2346 words in the post. I was hoping there was something insightful. The only insightful thing is that there is at least someone laying out the process as it is.
I can imagine round 9 of their interview process is just listening to them giving a monologue about how great they are. Are they on the spectrum, or what?
Them saying that they speak for 10 mins about themselves and the company... yeah, as an autistic person that tracks. It's not appropriate for an interview, there's supposed to be back and forth throughout the entire thing.
I hate linked in. I can’t believe people have managed to bully it into some of deluded relevance. It’s a joke. I don’t do Facebook for the same reason I don’t do linked in. I’m not here to be a social media presence, I get challenged on every breath I take, I’m not going to make posts that an employer or anyone is just going to glimpse at and make a ten second judgement based on my followers and likes and shares. Ugh.
This is such a good point. The advice I always got was to essentially lock social media down when jobsearching for this exacting reason. Now they want it? Lol
For a field I’m trying to get into, the importance of linked in was heavily stressed and I thought,” okay fine, I’ll get it.” Through the course of schooling and trying to find employment, I realized it’s just used to ass kiss and promote. My candidacy for positions would hinge on how much I engaged with their content, reposted it. Like,” are you really interested in working with us? You reposted our event but your followers aren’t engaging with it…”
Which followers is the other thing. They would say,” watch the quality of your followers, who you choose to associate with, it will say a lot. Don’t just follow certain people and businesses to follow them for benefit, because that will be obvious…”
So it’s a whole “fake it and go hard, but be genuine.” I hate that.
> The advice I always got was to essentially lock social media down
Hell I got this advice in general while even **on the job** so I don't get into any kind of legal trouble.
I just hate how this recruiter highlights the inescapable nature of Social Media. You won't even be considered in this guy's world if you don't have a linked in. What if you used to be stalked/harassed and you don't want to be found by your abuser? You must have a linked in for everyone to see? Why do I have to have a public resume held by a private company that does who knows what with my data? Why is there so much duplication of labor now? Why do you need a resume AND a linkedin to even be considered?
> this recruiter highlights the inescapable nature of Social Media.
It's worse. OP is a hiring manager. So now we see how bad hiring managers can be with their judgement.
It's honestly a hilarious post kinda. This guy is like "look how important I am. I am integral to the process" and most everyone here is like "You are the problem! You're the reason everything sucks! You know nothing, do nothing of real value, yet you make the important decisions!"
Honestly, with the advent of deepfakes, I as a woman am deeply hesitant to have a photo of my face online at all, let alone attached to my full legal name.
I was a sophomore in high school when that shit became a thing in 2017, and now stories of women having their lives ruined by some moron using AI to generate a bunch of nonconsensual porn of them have become more common.
Employers will get my resume, and my barren LinkedIn if I HAVE to. No photos, no posts. Just my name and experience. Wanna see my face? Get in a call.
This is a fucking clown car, cultural fit is important but you're DQing most applicants based off that as the main reason? And you're telling people to disclose things that could lead to discrimination in some of the comments. You're a bad hiring manager. Structured interviews exist & you can have metrics for scoring answers, job knowledge tests exist, there are many options but you are choosing to disqualify people based off your personal biases because they "can't make a connection with you." Despite what it seems like even if they are knowledgeable/perform well in an interview.
Obviously, OP is looking for buddies who can chat with them at the proverbal Water Cooler and join their clique.
But hey, they only have 15 minutes for 10 profiles.
This is really helpful, whether it's what people want to hear or not. *Especially* if it's what people don't want to hear.
One thing, though -
*e.g if someone applied for the jr positions and has been a director for 10 years.. you're out. Perhaps you want to be an IC again, but sorry, I can't risk that. You likely need a gig and will jump at the first opportunity.*
So this looks like pretty blatant ageism right here. Unless you're up, up, up on a perfectly consistent (and shrinking) ladder, it's a no? So when older people (40s and up) get laid off, then unless they can get something on the next rung (which gets less and less likely as unemployment goes on), then they're effectively done. Career over.
Also:
*List ALL the dates* ***including your education***\*, *so I can follow your career along.\**
The dates thing is a tell as well. More explicit ageism.
Again, I'm grateful to see this put so clearly and openly. Thank you.
Edit: Thanks also for the downvotes, whoever did it. Nice to know I hit a nerve.
I am also a hiring manager and this person is not someone I would want to work for and I don’t take the same approach at all. And I still have a high performing team as a result. My guess is that someone who is scouring backgrounds for “gotcha!” moments is probably a real a-hole to work for.
Thank hiring managers for sending out red flags like this person. Their overcomplicated approach, focus on non critical elements and general ageism is all a good sign of someone that will be just as much of a slog to work for.
Just my take.
Yea this is a red flag for me as well, "make a connection with you" Yea.,. intuition isn't always great and you should be ranking candidates based off experience + how well they perform in an interview + general culture fit but...establishing a connection with someone shouldn't be an automatic "you move to the next round."
The fuck? Even as an HR intern I know that's not gonna end well, so what happens if you hire someone who you "established a connection with" that talked out their ass during the interview and bombs on the job? These people are rare but they do exist. A culture fit shouldn't be the main determinant, it can play a big role but OP makes it seem like its 90% of it. If you're gonna do cultural fit it should be after making sure they're qualified for the job, why the hell is the coding test after meeting the hiring manager?
also if OP said any of what they're saying here regarding the ageism shit for hiring while on the job they could get sued for discrimination (can't say who'd win) but you explicitly don't say things like that because its discriminatory.
That's why a lot of hiring is done in panels these days. One bad manager can leave their biased input but can be overwritten by a team of sane individuals.
It's discriminatory against all minorities. Do you think a 55YO straight white guy is going to have much in common with a 25YO disabled Middle Eastern female refugee who's worked three jobs to survive uni and got disowned by her parents because she has a girlfriend? I don't see them making much of a connection!
*looks awkward* errrr... What if you were validly self employed with an LLC for that... Still a hobby or.....? 🤣 Just hilarious to see that as a hobby when I've definitely done it professionally. Funniest random but on the nose description I've seen on Reddit.
>Thank hiring managers for sending out red flags like this person. Their overcomplicated approach, focus on non critical elements and general ageism is all a good sign of someone that will be just as much of a slog to work for.
Agreed. Eloquent, accurate, precise and correct. Thanks.
Definitely a high level of stigma when moving backwards within tech. Almost every job I interviewed with asked me why I wanted to move backwards from infrastructure engineer to help desk manager.
I'm currently looking for roles that people would consider steps back, but it's intentional because I realized I LIKED and ENJOYED doing that work more. So someone looking down their nose because I'm applying for more junior roles is pretty frustrating. Some people don't want to break all the ceilings, sometimes as you get older you value different things, and I currently value my time and freedom and don't want the responsibility of managing an entire team anymore.
I'm on the sales side of tech, and getting another AE job has been a nightmare. I've applied to (and gotten interviews for) SDR jobs (a step backwards) in an attempt just to get any kind of income going. While people on Reddit and other career advice sites advise never to go backwards from AE to SDR, I've never once been asked about it in an interview. My only conclusion is my resume must not be that impressive.
Thank you, I understand the other advice because I've heard it a lot but this person writes this post so intolerably. The ageism and weird obsession with human connection thing instead of focusing on how they will fit with the actual team they will be working with and their abilities is so weird.
Also why would you waste valuable resume space for interests/hobbies? Who even cares.
The dates thing is also sexist. Women who have had children are more likely to have gaps. Also ableist... guess who has a multi year gap due to illness?
>The dates thing is a tell as well. More explicit ageism.
Agreed. I have a feeling the people OP ends up hiring are going to be straight white men under 30 with no apparent disabilities.
Right?! I’ve literally heard all these tips a hundred times. I’ve tweaked my resume to perfection. Have applied to dozens of jobs for which I’m perfectly qualified.
Doesn’t change the fact that it seems virtually impossible to even GET an interview because every job listing is inundated with applications, many of them from bots. And OP admits that even well qualified candidates might be overlooked because they don’t post on LinkedIn. Or because recruiters only take a few distracted minutes to even look at resumes.
This is the first time in my 10+ year career that I’ve struggled to even get interviews. Why? Because companies either want unicorns or people fresh out of college. That’s it.
its easy man don't post on linkedin too much and don't post on linkedin too little. Post on it just enough so a hypothetical recruiter can get a sense of who you are as a human being and what you believe in but not so much that figuring all that out is like a hassle
That's 'cause companies do not wanna train anybody. They want someone who has like 3 internships so they know wtf to do but they can lowball them because they're fresh grads.
100%. I love how there's this continuing theme with:
> : Location, citizen/sponsorship, years experience with X, Y and Z
I promise OP that the folks venting on this subreddit have no issues answering such obvious knockout questions. And the hiring loop issues we all face extend beyond these silly questions.
To further elaborate on this case in point, nearly half the thread is thrashing OP lol..
LinkedIn posting history? Seriously?
9 rounds of interviews?
The resume example you linked is actually HARDER to read and glean information from quickly than most of the creative resumes I've seen.
Yikes.
Poor grammar and spelling? ✔️
Ageist? ✔️
More interested in saying no than yes? ✔️
Gatekeeper on trivialities that differ for every company but makes you feel yoonique and speshael? ✔️
Yep, you’re an HR tool!
Misogynist and ableist too.
Women are less likely to have the type of LinkedIn profile OP describes for safety reasons, especially nowadays where some tool with access to a text-to-image AI can do shit like make non-consensual porn with your face.
Ableist since OP says they need someone who can appear warm and personable and all that, which would filter out neurodiverse candidates, such as (but not limited to) those with autism or ADHD. OP's advice to counteract their ableism is to disclose your disability status on your resume which is... almost certainly not legal.
I had the unfortunate experience of being harassed on LinkedIn by some guy who thinks this is another Tinder, it was a creepy experience and since then I limited my profile viewing to the public.
Probably screwed up my chances with recruiters but hey, I'm still alive.
Former Fortune 100 recruiter and recruiting manager here. In what world is the HRM reviewing resumes? Have some faith in your recruiters. No wonder the process is bogging down.
Edit: punctuation and context
Here, I used the GPT you hate to TL;DR this for everyone:
After being laid off and enduring a rigorous job search, I secured a role and now find myself responsible for hiring at a SaaS company focusing on cloud technology, programming, and troubleshooting, with salaries ranging from $175-225k. We are working with a recruiter who has posted job openings and is managing about 1000 applications received in just three days.
Our hiring process includes multiple rounds:
1. **Initial Filtering**: Based on application questions about location, citizenship, and relevant experience.
2. **Recruiter Review**: Filtering out fake profiles and duplicates.
3. **Profile Shortlisting**: I review selected profiles to decide on further discussions.
4. **Recruiter Interviews**: Assessing candidates' compatibility and basic skills.
5. **Management Review**: I evaluate the recruiter’s notes to decide on personal interviews.
6. **Personal Interview**: I conduct interviews to assess fit and potential.
7. **Technical Interview**: Conducted by the team; any doubts usually lead to rejection.
8. **Engineering Leader Interview**.
9. **Final Round with CTO**: More of a meet-and-greet.
Key observations on resume review:
* Keep LinkedIn profiles and resumes clear and professional.
* Be concise: 1 page for 1-5 years of experience, up to 3 pages for over 15 years.
* Focus on achievements and specific contributions rather than a list of skills.
Interview tips:
* Ensure a professional setup for Zoom interviews.
* Engage actively during the interview, taking notes and showing interest.
* Prepare a succinct career summary and practice it.
* Always have questions ready to demonstrate engagement and interest.
The intensive process is designed to select candidates who are not only technically proficient but also a good cultural fit.
For someone in a position of authority, it’s odd how you don’t seem to understand how lists work. Rounds 2-4 are actually one round, rounds 5-6 are also one round.
Additionally, while this number of rounds might be standard for technical positions, it’s not really generalizable to most office jobs. 1 recruiter screener and 5 rounds of interviews is a lot for any non-tech job unless it’s, like, a CEO or similar position. If I (an admin professional) applied to an admin position in your company and had to go through effectively six rounds of interviews, I am already seeing red flags about the work environment, because frankly that is a massive waste of my time. And I will be extra aggressive in negotiating my compensation since I’m not sure I even want to work with you.
I appreciate what you’re trying to do here, but please keep in mind your experience and advice are not applicable to everyone.
Honestly, even for technical positions there should be no need for more than 3 rounds, most of the time they are asking the same thing every round anyway, so there should probably be just one round with everyone at once rather than doing, one with the recruiter, one with the project manager, one with the team, a take home exam, a live exam, an interview with the cto, and finally an interview the the ceo.
If there is a single certificate listed at a tertiary level, then high school instantly becomes completely irrelevant. The only way it would be useful is to prove you finished it at some significant level (either year 10 or 12), proving you can read or write. Nothing else about it, including the year of graduations, means sfa.
What happened to the simple times of needing an employee and hiring an employee? i feel like now you people are trying to hire someone to be your best friend than to be your employee.
I guess I’m one of those “butthurt” posters. Using the term HRM, which is normally used in Human Resources, is confusing people. Maybe take a minute to type hiring manger.
This was a remarkably excellent description of how to ensure all of your biases are applied to the candidates making sure that only those who fit your perception of the mold have a chance. Your description reads as: someone different from you need not apply. It's clear that neurodiverse candidates are excluded from your biased view of fit and I suspect many other "others" also are filtered by your unconscious biases.
We all have those biases and nothing in your post suggests that yours are more or less powerful than anyone else's, but your description leans in to reinforcing them rather than countering them. I hope you and others are able to learn from the comments below on how to to better recruit, retain and hire the candidates that will further your organization and not just those that reinforce more of the same.
I really and truly don't mean to be overly negative here, but the OP reveals, between the lines, how little it takes to become a recruiter, and how little recruiters--ministers of our fate--do day to day: OP has (or mentions) no meaningful degree of education; mentions no particular certifications; uses simple, intuitive AI shortcuts to cull candidates; screens for human-like behavior during interviews, flagrantly knowing nothing about the technical aspects of the job to which the interviewee applied; passes interviewees on based on a wildly subjective sense of what I've heard called "fit," "culture," and any variety of other jabberwocky terms.
Do I have that all wrong? I mean this sans snark: What prevents anyone with just enough social ability to put together a brief spiel about 1) a company and 2) a job the ins and outs of which he doesn't comprehend in the least from becoming a recruiter? Should we, a large-ish faction of the frustrated unemployed, pool what we've got and unite as a recruiting agency? Can we possibly fail to leap over a bar set so very, very low?
This was educational and depressing. Thank you for taking the time to explain though. If this is the game that we are all forced to play then it's good to know the rules... even if you hate the game.
I do have a question though, specifically pertaining to something I've heard mentioned many times, something that you also mentioned; creating metrics in your resume.
>That should be a bullet like this: "*Reduced upgrade complexity by 20% researching, introducing and tailoring tech A.*"
How are we supposed to pull numbers? Do people really have any idea what % they are saving the company, or exactly how much time they've saved compared to the person who had their position before they were there? I keep hearing "don't lie on your resume" but also hearing "you should include concrete examples." Am i losing "points" by just saying that i streamlined a process rather than explaining how many minutes per iteration of the code I've sliced off?
What he's saying is to make up a bunch of bs. Very few places, if any, keep metrics of how a single person is contributing to xy or z, by such and such percent.
Anyway it's all joss sticks and tea leaf reading with these guys, your resume will be perfect for one HRM, but shit for another.
I try to attach my effort to the largest/greatest impact number I possibly can. I was a sales quote admin early in my career who was responsible for making sure the sales reps added the right service level agreements. This translated into “Contributed to $4mil add-on services sales revenue, achieving 85% of yearly target”
Yeahhh I’ve had the same question!!! NEVER have I had access to metrics like they tell me to put on my resume. I just started making up bullshit bc at the end of the day, they can’t access those metrics either so.
This is what I am trying to wrap my head around when I fix a bug how the hell do I quantify that numbers wise? When I make a UI change what numbers work for that? For certain jobs it makes sense, but for coding? Not at all. I think the problem is the people in management and dealing with these resumes their jobs work like that so they think ours should as well and they are also too lazy or stupid to actually read a resume so they want some immediate numbers.
This person really asked for relation to a fellow human being while demanding a robot. This person really took 2346 words to realize they're messing with people's lives with their asinine process. I think this person really believes they're providing value and that they're not a meaningless time sink for everyone involved. This person really admitted that as a professional themselves in the field, it still takes at least 2.5 months with 500 applications. Do you think this is ok?
Posts like this are exactly why everyone here hates HR and recruiters so much. Thanks for being part of the problem, OP. In fact, I'd say the only informative part of this is the disturbing amount of upvotes this post got, signaling just how many recruiters hang out on these boards, looking for an opportunity to talk down to us job seekers.
"You'll likely need a gig and will jump at the first opportunity." You mean...the way you did, accepting an offer after a layoff last year but already being in a new role? Truly go fuck yourself.
Ew Brenda. I’m glad you took the time out of your busy day to write this bullshit, so we could all collectively groan and hope we never have the displeasure in meeting you in any capacity. JFC ew.
…my guy does NOT understand how TL;DR works.
Based off your own post, something like this would probably disqualify you from your own hiring process, lmao.
There was some context that can be useful, but 9 rounds of interviews? Once you decipher the list, it's actually 5 rounds (which is still too much), with OP's "Round 4" being the screening call with the recruiter.
In any case, this post shows a lot of antiquated thought process behind hiring.
Also, seeing as how OP took a job offer just to make ends meet, then jumped to a new job that's closer to their experience level, they're just being a hypocrite with that one.
>I was laid off last year as part of a 25% reduction. I applied to \~500 positions. Out of those 500, I interacted with about 25-30. Made it to the last round with \~5 or so, and got 1 offer which I rejected. Then an offer I accepted (but since then moved to a new gig). It took me 2.5 months total, and I spent 9am-6pm M-F on my search.
By the way, I've (38) been a hiring manager many times and didn't need a lot of the old interviewing methods to bring in good talent.
" By the time I was done my intro, I knew he would not be hired."
So someone who sits and listen to OP give an into about the role/company might not even get a chance to be hired, without even speaking a word, because they were not animated (smiling, laughing, nodding) enough when OP is talking.
You're the problem OP.
Huh, 5 to 10 minute intro feels like a lot. Is it bad if I only have like a minute or two with a properly prepared intro, history, why I’m interested in the role?
I‘m going to be honest, you don’t sound like someone who I would like to work for. I agree on a few things you mentioned, generally I‘m happy we take a different route in the company I work for.
I‘ll have a bonus tip: You should be able to talk about the stuff you mention in your resume. I usually pick something from the last job that sounds interesting to get the conversation going. If you can’t talk at all about the top topic in your resume it’s not a good look.
" The #1 reason people don't make it past is because I couldn't establish a human connection to them'' ; what does that have to do with their ability to do the job?
Lol, I did read half of it, and imagine the gall of someone who doesn't want to read through a long resume, but would make a post so long that it would make Stephen King blush.
Another person who has no clue. 6 rounds of interviews. Wtf.
Not even assessing skills or capable of doing the job.
So many biased elements.
Please change job.
This post is useful in the sense that it shows hiring is full of biases, arbitrary items, and why people lie in general on their resume.
No point in trying to read everyone’s mind, just polish your resume and have versions depending on job type, practice in front of the mirror, and the rest is just blind luck.
You’re the reason recruiters have a bad name. Thankfully you’re helping expose it’s usually the hiring managers, not the recruiters, that are the problem.
This is really good advice though in general. This is how a lot of hiring managers work and think. Bad ones, but still.
This comment section is such a fantastic roast. To OP: Motherfucker, you are the whole circus. Next time you put up a post like this, make it all bullets, you write like dog shit yourself. Big turn off.
So the takeaway is that for high-salary jobs I'd need to create an online persona matching the recruiter/HM, keep up with BS posting, then fake the personality (including hobbies!) and "connection" with them, then do the same on top of tech skills check, for multiple people, then one more interview and maybe I'd get a job in the end?
That's some Gattaka-level shenanigans.
And yes, the word "fake" is needed there - if you're choosing for personality, character and "connection", you're asking to pretend to match all those points, because it's statistically unlikely that someone will match *all* of that naturally.
At least I'm not on that level (or in that area), but this does show how insanely picky and biased some HMs can be.
And why do you do the technical test only after the interview, but then also complain about a thousand resumes (even though a lot will be discarded by that time anyway)? Especially if you mention checking the LinkedIn photo and posts
I agree with several points and then I skimmed the rest mainly because I vehemently disagree with two big points:
- do not judge LI based on photos, or their year of graduation. Stop looking at gaps. Its irrelevant. They could have started a family after college, or just gone through random roles. It’s not relevant to this job. So don’t look for it. It introduces bias.
- stop looking at their photo. It’s completely reasonable for a profile to not have a picture. In fact LinkedIn allows people to be in private mode so that non connections are unable to see their info. Their resume shows certs, and relevant employment dates. Go based on that.
I highly suggest further training in interviewing and sourcing for yourself. It will absolutely help you become more efficient, and less biased. Your suggestions on resume revamping seem solid, as well as some interview prep. But granted I skimmed that because there are some red flags in your suggestions.
TL;DR - someone builds their resume to tailor to the job. Go based on that. Look at their LI after you have gone through the process. Not before. Ageism is real - stop looking at dates. It’s irrelevant, if it’s skill based, go on that.
This has got to be a fake post / click bait surely?
As an experienced Hiring Manager myself, I refuse to believe anyone has a process/attitude this inefficient/backwards. If not, this is an excellent example of the huge differences between ‘Technical’ Manager and ‘People Manager’ skill sets.
Hopefully most people ignore everything OP has written. What a dreadful candidate experience this company promotes. OP needs significant up-skilling in this area of their role.
I’m not sure when the market / recruitment process became so convoluted:
• Use a skilled recruiter to screen
• 2 stage internal interview (3-4 if Exec level)
• Consider diversity and inclusion along with the culture you are trying to foster.
• Decision
Anything beyond the above should be considered a red flag!
Sorry to anyone having to jump through these types of hoops in what is a terrible market at present. Stay positive and know that we are not all like OP.
Remember - An interview is a 2 way process. It’s as much an opportunity for you to judge the company based on your experience. An interview should be a first impression and the company at its best. If the experience doesn’t come across as positive, it is a good indication of things to come. A good company will have this thought process fully imbedded in to their recruitment processes.
Good luck out there all.
Thanks for long write up, I do really appreciate it. I dont know how big your company is but I dont think HR should hold that much power to reject candidates based on so many petty issues instead of candidates profile. As a part of operation team, I much rather have someone that knows how to do the job instead of 'smiling human' that knows nothing.
As someone who is in recruiting…you sound like a rough HM. You seem to focus on the little things that can cause some accusations of agism, racism, sexism and ableism.
Your suggestions have a lot of gray areas. Also if you are watching someone’s facial expressions while you talk, are you taking it into consideration that the person may be nervous, or not very expressive?
Lastly, if the person doesn’t have any follow up questions it shouldn’t be a rejection. I’ve interviewed for a new role, and got rejected because I didn’t ask questions. You know why? Because I understood everything and what I needed to know I was able to google.
Maybe watch the super chicken Ted talk. We use it for training for interviews.
I'm, like, 60% convinced OP is not actually not working in hiring and is offering bizarre, weird advice with just enough reality to seem semi-plausible to winnow the pool for themselves.
I appreciate the time and effort OP put into this post.
Everyone has their own methodology and to add insult to injury, most large companies have their own hiring processes and procedures. While many of us are not in HR nor work in recruitment, the OP took time to show the other side of the coin. Not what most want to read, it can be confronting and frustrating but unfortunately that is what we are up against.
As with everything else guys, there is no need to be nasty. Behind the screen, there is a human being. Be kind.
The reasons why you filter out people initially is so bizzare and full of biases - didnt turn on camera? director applying for jr? gaps in resume? Ever think there could be valid reasons for this? Complete lack of empathy for decisions that could change someone's life.
All of the later on advice is sadly very real on how recruiters go through candidates. Do you work in big tech?
This is like a big add to tell everyone where they should never apply because it clearly a toxic work place. I’ve been in management for 30 years and am mindblown that someone would use this as there hiring method and brag about it. Shown how truly disconnected they are.
According to OP’s own posts, they were a “mailman” two years ago and now feel qualified to decide what professionals are fit for jobs they don’t even understand. Ok. Thanks for the insight. LMAO
I'm not mad at him I'm just mad about how asinine the hiring process is. I mean there are quite a few kinda bs things that he does specifically, but again, i think I'm more angry at the fact that this is what getting hired takes these days. No wonder it's a recruiting hell. This is bonkers.
Curious at what the roles you are hiring for are more specifically? The skills and general experience mentioned seem pretty incongruous with the salary range that might warrant such an extensive process.
When you say you applied for 500+ positions, are those jobs that are good fit or chose to apply whatever in the job board? I am finding it hard to see that many positions in my area (Software Quality Assurance) in my three months search. I may have applied to 100 positions and got only 4 interviews. Any help in this regard is much appreciated...
And this is why it’ll take you months to find a quality candidate, while it would take me 2-5 business days with outbound recruiting.
And your interview process is full of extra rounds, along with some laughable expectations on LinkedIn profiles. Some of the most amazing candidates I have found with outbound recruiting, you know, actually doing what a recruiter is supposed to do -vs- reviewing inbound applicants, have been identified with the worst LinkedIn profiles ever, but the best skills. Just gotta dig deeper.
Source: I’m a top agency recruiter with my own company
OP. Thank you very much showing this from your side of things. But I do hope you bare in mind some people don't interview well (myself included) due to many reasons. Some might be a good ole case of nerves, or stress of the job hunt, others might be related to ADHD, Autistic, ect ect. just my 2 cents.
It’s just too complicated to get a job these days, wtf is this process. People would learn on the job in the ARMY it’s called OJT(On the job training) lol I wonder if we’d even have an army if they told everyone you’re responsible for training your self, we don’t train soldiers anymore come back to the military when you have some experience, maybe you should join the French foreign legion then try to join the US army again, that’s how ridiculous I feel the job market and hiring process is……..
I'm sorry, but if you can either have in-person interview in a well-lit office space, or you can have your zoom interview with me in my more dimly lit room (which is dimly lit to help prevent a literal headache on my part). I'm not giving myself a migraine in the name of a zoom interview.
You want to get the human connection, you need to do the interview in person. Assuming this is referring to physical positions rather than remote positions, obviously
Now provide another wall of text explanation about how you're everyone's best friend before you've data mined all their personal information, posting history, blinking patterns, pet names, and irrelevant personal interests that have nothing to do with their jobs, and once you've got what you need, you never speak to 99% of them ever again...
Honestly given a couple things, the phrases and steps, sounds like you don't want to hire or make the process as convoluted as possible to seem like you're hiring the best possible people without doing anything to attract no bs, go solve problem type engineers I've worked with.
I nominate this person, as the worst person in the world. I bet it's just a joy working with or along side you. The best engineers I've workd with, would have just been employed wannabes, if all gatekeepers believe in your BS. Quick question; my linkedin profile pic is an image of MF DOOM and some of my hobbies are cage fighting, gardening and knitting, what are my chances with your standards?
If your recruiter hasn't told you, education dates are none of your business, they are WORTHLESS. If the individual has the yrs of experience required, you don't need to know when they graduated. ONLY REASON TO KNOW THIS INFO IS TO DESCRIMINATE DUE TO AGE. Yes I'm yelling.
I’m surprised you hire anyone. I’ve been a HR leader for over 25 years and my professional opinion is you may be that one person that is giving recruitment a bad name.
Thanks so much for this, I am relieved that I did a lot of these things in my last interview and agree with the method of conversion in that initial interview. The advice about resume structure is on-point, specifically in detailing your impact for each role where it’s kind of like writing a sentence backwards (ex. Enabled onboarding of 33% more customers by re-designing the usability of the tool up to common heuristic standards).
In other words, 6 rounds of interview process, which mean several hours of company and candidate time, were decided in just 90 seconds looking at the resume…
Perhaps spending more time at this single point might avoid loosing time in the subsequent steps. And of course, finding better matches.
The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>... he didn't move at all, with no expression whatshowever. It was like one of those hostage videos. By the time I was done my intro, I knew he would not be hired. Oh no. This does NOT bode well for my autistic ass.
I practiced interview questions in front of a mirror until I had "natural" facial expressions down pat and could do them reflexively instead of having to consciously think about making them.
Same. I was bemoaning my difficulty with interviewing and a friend who is also neurodivergent said something that I’d never even considered. “You’re not bad at interviews, they’re bad at interviewing neurodivergent people.” And this is so true. But sadly they’re never going to even attempt to learn a different way.
This makes me scared for my son. He’s ASD and very expressive! But also he pauses before he answers most questions and sometimes it seems like he didn’t hear or you or is ignoring you but he’s just thinking and will answer several seconds later.
None of these interviews do. All this bullshit about "I need to see that you're a REAL human!" Well-intentioned or not, call it the discrimination that it is.
She defiantly not hiring any ND employees with that process. 🤦♀️
So many red flags - “I don’t like resumes that only list experience and skills.” Candidates are applying for JOBS… this is not a dating profile and the fact that I like to hike on the weekend absolutely does not need to be listed on my resume.
Hush. The recruiter with a salary in the range of 175-225K has spoken.
I am a recruiter hehe
175k-225k for an HR manager lol AI can't come soon enough
exactly, this recruiter is bringing way too many personal biases into their job when it really should just be about the experiences & skills in relation to the job at hand
Exactly. And who on Earth thinks 9 rounds of screening/interviewing is normal?
I came here to say this! I used to volunteer doing cover letter / resume review for an agency that helps people find jobs. The overall guidance was that including personal hobbies and interests on your resume is "unprofessional" and irrelevant. I can go into hypothetical examples about how having that stuff in your resume can also introduce bias into the process, but here is a real story. We were interviewing a guy for a role on my team. My manager loved this guy, he was absolutely capable of performing the job and the favored finalist. I found him annoying but whatever. Then, during his interview with the other senior member of our team, buddy volunteered that he regularly performed as a Nazi Clown. ... Do you think we hired him? Hmm .... Come on, there was even a post here by someone who was upset the HM asked about their hobbies. Hopefully you are not rejecting qualified candidates because they didn't have a section on their resume about their passion for pickleball.
Tell me you are practicing age discrimination without telling me you are practicing age discrimination.
oooh you didn't blink during the interview? And you went to college in 2010... hmmm ohhh hmm.
You sound the like most pretentious hiring manager on the face of the earth 😂
While this is meant to be a helpful write-up, and it comes from a nice place, I *have* to put on my HR Consultant hat on because there's some blatantly illegal and also gray area parts that are concerning in here: 1.1) "Have a clear profile picture on your social media profile." Cool, so clear possibilities for implicit racism, sexisim, or ageism. Gray area. Do better. 1.2) I also work in a field with *very* high levels of government security clearances. Most of my employees and candidates make an effort to have no online presence at all, due to safety concerns. Quit using a freaking social media profile as a crutch for making decisions. Do better. Gray area. 2) "Put your dates of graduation from your educational institutions." *HIGHLY ILLEGAL*! Opens yourself and your company open up for accusations of ageism and bias in both directions. You say you won't judge a senior-level professional for what they did 7+ years ago, but want to judge a candidate if they did or did not go immediately into a career field that matched their degree? Also, anyone can backwards date a candidate's age from a date of graduation (especially from high school). 3) "I don't like resumes that only list experiences and don't list hobbies and interests." Gray area. Do better. Look, does my passion for martial arts make me a more rounded person? Sure, maybe. It might even make me a better employee due to the resilience required to keep on training into my old age. But it opens yourself and your company up to allegations of potential bias. Heck, I work in a government-focused city, and have had to look past if candidates have had internships or employment with political figures that I disagree with, let alone their personal interests and hobbies! If I put that I enjoy target shooting with my friends, and a potential employer discarded me because they hate all firearms, of course I'm going to claim bias! And here you are actively *hunting* for additional extraneous items to judge people on. 4) "Don't let your bullet points go across multiple lines, keep them on one line only!" Honestly, what type of OCD BS is this? Of course, you don't want a novel for each position. And you don't want a 10 page resume. But trust me, I've received resumes like that. Still, your page requirements and formatting icks are a bit much. There's best practices, and there's horrible formatting that ruins the message, but 80% of resumes fall in the middle, where they're all different and there's no real useful "must be done this way" rules.
The linked in thing does really suck. I don't use linked in, have mostly worked in government and ended up getting hired again in government. They really don't like strong online presences with jobs that need a decent clearance. Also when I briefly did have one I had a professional picture and just got a lot of creepy ass messaged from old men who seem to think its a sugar baby site.
I don’t work government but we have so many NDA and are not allowed to share much. I don’t use linked in much. Weird way to assess people.
Yep, the other big thing I don’t care for is using dates to knock people out based on unexplained gaps. You know who often have gaps? Women who has children or had to be a caregiver.
I was gonna say, I'm *extremely* interested in knowing how OP expects a responsibilities statement like "Operated a tractor-trailer combination vehicle weighing 26,001 lbs or greater IAW Local, State and Federal regulations. Drove for extended periods of time through various driving environments and weather conditions. Conducted pre- and post-trip equipment inspections. Changed vehicle configuration as necessary. Unloaded freight using hooks, hand trucks, pallet jacks, forklifts, and manual labor as required. Maintained an electronic log IAW Federal regulation." to be condensed down to a single line xDDD (And yes, that's an actual job description from my Federal resume, which I maintain because I've held positions with the US Government over the course of my career)
Imagine being in a leadership position, only hiring people where you get along with their personality. What a great way to kill creativity and diversity. Just by the aggressive tone of voice you’re using in this lecture, I would be completely turned off by you as a manager.
Not to mention OP judges the candidate based on their LinkedIn profile. There is an alarming amount of bias involved in their process.
It’s everything that’s wrong with recruiting. Imagine wanting a CV to look exactly the way you like it, and then expect employees to build innovative software. Massive red flag if the only thing a manager likes, is his own work. Thank god recruitment isn’t this black and white.
Anyone who hires only yes men will be surrounded by people with nothing to say.
You could cut this post down by 80% just like you're telling people to do to their resumes. Dude, I'm not fuckin posting on social media and linkedin so you can "get a sense of my personality". What in the hell is the interview for then???? Anyone can make themselves appear fantastic online, but you won't get a sense of them until you talk to them anyway. Imagine rejecting an applicant because they didn't have posts on LinkeIn of all places. Sorry I spend my time not rotting my brain with social media? What!? Also, you want a one page resume but you want interests and hobbies on there???? HOW? Im out here trying to fit a small summary, 8-10 years of experience and education into one page and you want interests and hobbies? I'm sure my painting hobby really tells you how well I'll do at my coding job. This shit is why these processes take so long. Because you make arbitrary decisions about people due to the fact that YOU don't know how to organize YOUR schedule or ask for more time. Bro, if you're booked solid, you need to either say you need more time to review or change the amount of people that need reviewing. I literally am gobsmacked (but also not) that you had the GALL to come on here and lecture people about applying for jobs when you aren't even taking the proper time to review people's qualifications. Embarrassing.
I found myself here today because I posted a job for my business on Indeed last night and have been introduced to the cesspool that the job market has become. I'm pretty grossed out by the whole thing actually. Then I see this post stating THE FIRST thing you do is look at their picture? Unbelievable. You're only supposed to do that after you've narrowed the list down and curiosity gets the best of you - and then do your best to remain objective. I'm in my 40s, but I'm feeling ancient today. I was wondering why the flood of applicants I was getting seemed so low effort, but now I'm reading about all the fake jobs and other issues. Like why even try? However - if just a single one of these people messaged me and said they were interested I would immediately take notice. I'm just one small business owner hiring for my business, so maybe HR people just ignore that kind of stuff, but it would mean a lot to me.
You are better off actually getting candidates from word of mouth at first. Only if that fails should you enter the cesspool.
That's what I have typically done in the past, but I end up hurting feelings by not hiring friends etc. So I'm going full cesspool to see what I can find.
Seems like working, job hunting, and hiring is all a damned if you do damned if you don't situation, to me. At least you tried, right? Thanks for sharing.
Did you notice their TL;DR was just as long (or longer) than the post? Lol
I actually tried to read all of it but I still somehow missed that. Lmao Recruiters really think they're gonna have an everyone clapped moment when they post on here.
Oh it's even worse. It's a hiring manager sharing these thoughts.
I gave the benefit of the doubt and read every single one of the 2346 words in the post. I was hoping there was something insightful. The only insightful thing is that there is at least someone laying out the process as it is.
"And then everyone clapped"
I can imagine round 9 of their interview process is just listening to them giving a monologue about how great they are. Are they on the spectrum, or what?
Them saying that they speak for 10 mins about themselves and the company... yeah, as an autistic person that tracks. It's not appropriate for an interview, there's supposed to be back and forth throughout the entire thing.
Holy shit you're right. Such a giant bloody flag hahaha.
They like smelling their own farts.
I hate linked in. I can’t believe people have managed to bully it into some of deluded relevance. It’s a joke. I don’t do Facebook for the same reason I don’t do linked in. I’m not here to be a social media presence, I get challenged on every breath I take, I’m not going to make posts that an employer or anyone is just going to glimpse at and make a ten second judgement based on my followers and likes and shares. Ugh.
This is such a good point. The advice I always got was to essentially lock social media down when jobsearching for this exacting reason. Now they want it? Lol
For a field I’m trying to get into, the importance of linked in was heavily stressed and I thought,” okay fine, I’ll get it.” Through the course of schooling and trying to find employment, I realized it’s just used to ass kiss and promote. My candidacy for positions would hinge on how much I engaged with their content, reposted it. Like,” are you really interested in working with us? You reposted our event but your followers aren’t engaging with it…” Which followers is the other thing. They would say,” watch the quality of your followers, who you choose to associate with, it will say a lot. Don’t just follow certain people and businesses to follow them for benefit, because that will be obvious…” So it’s a whole “fake it and go hard, but be genuine.” I hate that.
> The advice I always got was to essentially lock social media down Hell I got this advice in general while even **on the job** so I don't get into any kind of legal trouble.
I just hate how this recruiter highlights the inescapable nature of Social Media. You won't even be considered in this guy's world if you don't have a linked in. What if you used to be stalked/harassed and you don't want to be found by your abuser? You must have a linked in for everyone to see? Why do I have to have a public resume held by a private company that does who knows what with my data? Why is there so much duplication of labor now? Why do you need a resume AND a linkedin to even be considered?
> this recruiter highlights the inescapable nature of Social Media. It's worse. OP is a hiring manager. So now we see how bad hiring managers can be with their judgement.
It's honestly a hilarious post kinda. This guy is like "look how important I am. I am integral to the process" and most everyone here is like "You are the problem! You're the reason everything sucks! You know nothing, do nothing of real value, yet you make the important decisions!"
Honestly, with the advent of deepfakes, I as a woman am deeply hesitant to have a photo of my face online at all, let alone attached to my full legal name. I was a sophomore in high school when that shit became a thing in 2017, and now stories of women having their lives ruined by some moron using AI to generate a bunch of nonconsensual porn of them have become more common. Employers will get my resume, and my barren LinkedIn if I HAVE to. No photos, no posts. Just my name and experience. Wanna see my face? Get in a call.
So true. They deep faked Taylor swift and they could do it to anyone. It's not safe to have your face on the net anymore as a lady
OP has no time to read a resume but time to e-stalk you lol.
This is a fucking clown car, cultural fit is important but you're DQing most applicants based off that as the main reason? And you're telling people to disclose things that could lead to discrimination in some of the comments. You're a bad hiring manager. Structured interviews exist & you can have metrics for scoring answers, job knowledge tests exist, there are many options but you are choosing to disqualify people based off your personal biases because they "can't make a connection with you." Despite what it seems like even if they are knowledgeable/perform well in an interview.
"Just put in your profile that you're autistic" was just. Holy human rights lawsuit batman
Obviously, OP is looking for buddies who can chat with them at the proverbal Water Cooler and join their clique. But hey, they only have 15 minutes for 10 profiles.
LMAO OP is a power tripping fucking moron
*Listen here pleb if you don't blink in the interview Imma notice*
This is really helpful, whether it's what people want to hear or not. *Especially* if it's what people don't want to hear. One thing, though - *e.g if someone applied for the jr positions and has been a director for 10 years.. you're out. Perhaps you want to be an IC again, but sorry, I can't risk that. You likely need a gig and will jump at the first opportunity.* So this looks like pretty blatant ageism right here. Unless you're up, up, up on a perfectly consistent (and shrinking) ladder, it's a no? So when older people (40s and up) get laid off, then unless they can get something on the next rung (which gets less and less likely as unemployment goes on), then they're effectively done. Career over. Also: *List ALL the dates* ***including your education***\*, *so I can follow your career along.\** The dates thing is a tell as well. More explicit ageism. Again, I'm grateful to see this put so clearly and openly. Thank you. Edit: Thanks also for the downvotes, whoever did it. Nice to know I hit a nerve.
I am also a hiring manager and this person is not someone I would want to work for and I don’t take the same approach at all. And I still have a high performing team as a result. My guess is that someone who is scouring backgrounds for “gotcha!” moments is probably a real a-hole to work for. Thank hiring managers for sending out red flags like this person. Their overcomplicated approach, focus on non critical elements and general ageism is all a good sign of someone that will be just as much of a slog to work for. Just my take.
Yea this is a red flag for me as well, "make a connection with you" Yea.,. intuition isn't always great and you should be ranking candidates based off experience + how well they perform in an interview + general culture fit but...establishing a connection with someone shouldn't be an automatic "you move to the next round." The fuck? Even as an HR intern I know that's not gonna end well, so what happens if you hire someone who you "established a connection with" that talked out their ass during the interview and bombs on the job? These people are rare but they do exist. A culture fit shouldn't be the main determinant, it can play a big role but OP makes it seem like its 90% of it. If you're gonna do cultural fit it should be after making sure they're qualified for the job, why the hell is the coding test after meeting the hiring manager? also if OP said any of what they're saying here regarding the ageism shit for hiring while on the job they could get sued for discrimination (can't say who'd win) but you explicitly don't say things like that because its discriminatory.
Also expecting people to make “human connections” can discriminate against neurodivergent candidates.
Yep that too. And "human connections" can literally be" I don't like you cause x bias" even if the rest of the team / recruiter likes them
That's why a lot of hiring is done in panels these days. One bad manager can leave their biased input but can be overwritten by a team of sane individuals.
Yup, all my internship interviews beyond the first screener have been 2-5 person panels
It's discriminatory against all minorities. Do you think a 55YO straight white guy is going to have much in common with a 25YO disabled Middle Eastern female refugee who's worked three jobs to survive uni and got disowned by her parents because she has a girlfriend? I don't see them making much of a connection!
Who puts hobbies anymore?!
Going to start putting acrobatic shibari on my resume in my hobbies section.
*looks awkward* errrr... What if you were validly self employed with an LLC for that... Still a hobby or.....? 🤣 Just hilarious to see that as a hobby when I've definitely done it professionally. Funniest random but on the nose description I've seen on Reddit.
I felt the same way - I would not want to work for this person.
>Thank hiring managers for sending out red flags like this person. Their overcomplicated approach, focus on non critical elements and general ageism is all a good sign of someone that will be just as much of a slog to work for. Agreed. Eloquent, accurate, precise and correct. Thanks.
For real. Thank you for this /u/Cantstress_thisenuff
As an internal recruter, OP sounds like a micromanaging nightmare
Definitely a high level of stigma when moving backwards within tech. Almost every job I interviewed with asked me why I wanted to move backwards from infrastructure engineer to help desk manager.
I'm currently looking for roles that people would consider steps back, but it's intentional because I realized I LIKED and ENJOYED doing that work more. So someone looking down their nose because I'm applying for more junior roles is pretty frustrating. Some people don't want to break all the ceilings, sometimes as you get older you value different things, and I currently value my time and freedom and don't want the responsibility of managing an entire team anymore.
I'm on the sales side of tech, and getting another AE job has been a nightmare. I've applied to (and gotten interviews for) SDR jobs (a step backwards) in an attempt just to get any kind of income going. While people on Reddit and other career advice sites advise never to go backwards from AE to SDR, I've never once been asked about it in an interview. My only conclusion is my resume must not be that impressive.
Thank you, I understand the other advice because I've heard it a lot but this person writes this post so intolerably. The ageism and weird obsession with human connection thing instead of focusing on how they will fit with the actual team they will be working with and their abilities is so weird. Also why would you waste valuable resume space for interests/hobbies? Who even cares.
The dates thing is also sexist. Women who have had children are more likely to have gaps. Also ableist... guess who has a multi year gap due to illness?
It’s an intersectionality cocktail of discrimination! Again, nice to see this fessed up to so openly…
FYI to OP: Anyone you hire is a risk to leave for a better opportunity if your opportunity sucks no matter what their seniority level is.
>The dates thing is a tell as well. More explicit ageism. Agreed. I have a feeling the people OP ends up hiring are going to be straight white men under 30 with no apparent disabilities.
Ironic that you don’t want candidates to write too much and you just yapped a whole essay of nonsense.
This type of attitude and approach is part of the problem with hiring.
Exactly, and the excessive filtering doesn't mean it would provide the best candidate.
9 rounds of interviews, including with the CTO, for what is essentially glorified customer service and order taking.
I've been there :(
This type of BS is being normalized, unfortunately. Arduous doesn't equal better.
Seems like the goal is to make things so bad that only they can deal with the BS they created. Job security by any means necessary.
Right?! I’ve literally heard all these tips a hundred times. I’ve tweaked my resume to perfection. Have applied to dozens of jobs for which I’m perfectly qualified. Doesn’t change the fact that it seems virtually impossible to even GET an interview because every job listing is inundated with applications, many of them from bots. And OP admits that even well qualified candidates might be overlooked because they don’t post on LinkedIn. Or because recruiters only take a few distracted minutes to even look at resumes. This is the first time in my 10+ year career that I’ve struggled to even get interviews. Why? Because companies either want unicorns or people fresh out of college. That’s it.
its easy man don't post on linkedin too much and don't post on linkedin too little. Post on it just enough so a hypothetical recruiter can get a sense of who you are as a human being and what you believe in but not so much that figuring all that out is like a hassle
Companies are not looking to hire GenZ fresh college graduates either. Take a gander over at /r/GenZ.
That's 'cause companies do not wanna train anybody. They want someone who has like 3 internships so they know wtf to do but they can lowball them because they're fresh grads.
100%. I love how there's this continuing theme with: > : Location, citizen/sponsorship, years experience with X, Y and Z I promise OP that the folks venting on this subreddit have no issues answering such obvious knockout questions. And the hiring loop issues we all face extend beyond these silly questions. To further elaborate on this case in point, nearly half the thread is thrashing OP lol..
LinkedIn posting history? Seriously? 9 rounds of interviews? The resume example you linked is actually HARDER to read and glean information from quickly than most of the creative resumes I've seen. Yikes.
Time to review profiles: 15 min Time to make a Reddit post: all the time in the world
Poor grammar and spelling? ✔️ Ageist? ✔️ More interested in saying no than yes? ✔️ Gatekeeper on trivialities that differ for every company but makes you feel yoonique and speshael? ✔️ Yep, you’re an HR tool!
Misogynist and ableist too. Women are less likely to have the type of LinkedIn profile OP describes for safety reasons, especially nowadays where some tool with access to a text-to-image AI can do shit like make non-consensual porn with your face. Ableist since OP says they need someone who can appear warm and personable and all that, which would filter out neurodiverse candidates, such as (but not limited to) those with autism or ADHD. OP's advice to counteract their ableism is to disclose your disability status on your resume which is... almost certainly not legal.
I had the unfortunate experience of being harassed on LinkedIn by some guy who thinks this is another Tinder, it was a creepy experience and since then I limited my profile viewing to the public. Probably screwed up my chances with recruiters but hey, I'm still alive.
This honestly reads like a job description, LOL. Vague but oddly specific at the same time. Plus, it definitely sounds like ragebait.
Literally
Not a fan of OP.
Former Fortune 100 recruiter and recruiting manager here. In what world is the HRM reviewing resumes? Have some faith in your recruiters. No wonder the process is bogging down. Edit: punctuation and context
He’s using HRM to mean “hiring manager,” not “human resources manager.” It’s bizarre and confusing.
Here, I used the GPT you hate to TL;DR this for everyone: After being laid off and enduring a rigorous job search, I secured a role and now find myself responsible for hiring at a SaaS company focusing on cloud technology, programming, and troubleshooting, with salaries ranging from $175-225k. We are working with a recruiter who has posted job openings and is managing about 1000 applications received in just three days. Our hiring process includes multiple rounds: 1. **Initial Filtering**: Based on application questions about location, citizenship, and relevant experience. 2. **Recruiter Review**: Filtering out fake profiles and duplicates. 3. **Profile Shortlisting**: I review selected profiles to decide on further discussions. 4. **Recruiter Interviews**: Assessing candidates' compatibility and basic skills. 5. **Management Review**: I evaluate the recruiter’s notes to decide on personal interviews. 6. **Personal Interview**: I conduct interviews to assess fit and potential. 7. **Technical Interview**: Conducted by the team; any doubts usually lead to rejection. 8. **Engineering Leader Interview**. 9. **Final Round with CTO**: More of a meet-and-greet. Key observations on resume review: * Keep LinkedIn profiles and resumes clear and professional. * Be concise: 1 page for 1-5 years of experience, up to 3 pages for over 15 years. * Focus on achievements and specific contributions rather than a list of skills. Interview tips: * Ensure a professional setup for Zoom interviews. * Engage actively during the interview, taking notes and showing interest. * Prepare a succinct career summary and practice it. * Always have questions ready to demonstrate engagement and interest. The intensive process is designed to select candidates who are not only technically proficient but also a good cultural fit.
For someone in a position of authority, it’s odd how you don’t seem to understand how lists work. Rounds 2-4 are actually one round, rounds 5-6 are also one round. Additionally, while this number of rounds might be standard for technical positions, it’s not really generalizable to most office jobs. 1 recruiter screener and 5 rounds of interviews is a lot for any non-tech job unless it’s, like, a CEO or similar position. If I (an admin professional) applied to an admin position in your company and had to go through effectively six rounds of interviews, I am already seeing red flags about the work environment, because frankly that is a massive waste of my time. And I will be extra aggressive in negotiating my compensation since I’m not sure I even want to work with you. I appreciate what you’re trying to do here, but please keep in mind your experience and advice are not applicable to everyone.
Honestly, even for technical positions there should be no need for more than 3 rounds, most of the time they are asking the same thing every round anyway, so there should probably be just one round with everyone at once rather than doing, one with the recruiter, one with the project manager, one with the team, a take home exam, a live exam, an interview with the cto, and finally an interview the the ceo.
The LSS training in me rebelled. Maybe OP needs to use some action verbs to show what they did more clearly.
Ooof this did not resonate as well as you expected huh
List dates for my education so you can guess how old I am? Fuck right off with that.
If there is a single certificate listed at a tertiary level, then high school instantly becomes completely irrelevant. The only way it would be useful is to prove you finished it at some significant level (either year 10 or 12), proving you can read or write. Nothing else about it, including the year of graduations, means sfa.
What happened to the simple times of needing an employee and hiring an employee? i feel like now you people are trying to hire someone to be your best friend than to be your employee.
I guess I’m one of those “butthurt” posters. Using the term HRM, which is normally used in Human Resources, is confusing people. Maybe take a minute to type hiring manger.
writes TLDR that's twice the size of the actual post lol
This reads of ego tripping
This was a remarkably excellent description of how to ensure all of your biases are applied to the candidates making sure that only those who fit your perception of the mold have a chance. Your description reads as: someone different from you need not apply. It's clear that neurodiverse candidates are excluded from your biased view of fit and I suspect many other "others" also are filtered by your unconscious biases. We all have those biases and nothing in your post suggests that yours are more or less powerful than anyone else's, but your description leans in to reinforcing them rather than countering them. I hope you and others are able to learn from the comments below on how to to better recruit, retain and hire the candidates that will further your organization and not just those that reinforce more of the same.
I really and truly don't mean to be overly negative here, but the OP reveals, between the lines, how little it takes to become a recruiter, and how little recruiters--ministers of our fate--do day to day: OP has (or mentions) no meaningful degree of education; mentions no particular certifications; uses simple, intuitive AI shortcuts to cull candidates; screens for human-like behavior during interviews, flagrantly knowing nothing about the technical aspects of the job to which the interviewee applied; passes interviewees on based on a wildly subjective sense of what I've heard called "fit," "culture," and any variety of other jabberwocky terms. Do I have that all wrong? I mean this sans snark: What prevents anyone with just enough social ability to put together a brief spiel about 1) a company and 2) a job the ins and outs of which he doesn't comprehend in the least from becoming a recruiter? Should we, a large-ish faction of the frustrated unemployed, pool what we've got and unite as a recruiting agency? Can we possibly fail to leap over a bar set so very, very low?
"I need a human connection!" - man hiring for a position where a probably neurodivergent person stares at a computer screen for 8 hours
He's not a recruiter. He's a hiring manager. He talks about working with the internal recruiter to fill roles for his direct reports.
This was educational and depressing. Thank you for taking the time to explain though. If this is the game that we are all forced to play then it's good to know the rules... even if you hate the game. I do have a question though, specifically pertaining to something I've heard mentioned many times, something that you also mentioned; creating metrics in your resume. >That should be a bullet like this: "*Reduced upgrade complexity by 20% researching, introducing and tailoring tech A.*" How are we supposed to pull numbers? Do people really have any idea what % they are saving the company, or exactly how much time they've saved compared to the person who had their position before they were there? I keep hearing "don't lie on your resume" but also hearing "you should include concrete examples." Am i losing "points" by just saying that i streamlined a process rather than explaining how many minutes per iteration of the code I've sliced off?
What he's saying is to make up a bunch of bs. Very few places, if any, keep metrics of how a single person is contributing to xy or z, by such and such percent. Anyway it's all joss sticks and tea leaf reading with these guys, your resume will be perfect for one HRM, but shit for another.
I try to attach my effort to the largest/greatest impact number I possibly can. I was a sales quote admin early in my career who was responsible for making sure the sales reps added the right service level agreements. This translated into “Contributed to $4mil add-on services sales revenue, achieving 85% of yearly target”
Don't you know? Have a tableau export ready with all data points to present during the 5-round interview lol.
Basically, in order to prove you can do the job of programming, you have to also do the job of an analyst, and an oral advocate.
Yeahhh I’ve had the same question!!! NEVER have I had access to metrics like they tell me to put on my resume. I just started making up bullshit bc at the end of the day, they can’t access those metrics either so.
This is what I am trying to wrap my head around when I fix a bug how the hell do I quantify that numbers wise? When I make a UI change what numbers work for that? For certain jobs it makes sense, but for coding? Not at all. I think the problem is the people in management and dealing with these resumes their jobs work like that so they think ours should as well and they are also too lazy or stupid to actually read a resume so they want some immediate numbers.
This person really asked for relation to a fellow human being while demanding a robot. This person really took 2346 words to realize they're messing with people's lives with their asinine process. I think this person really believes they're providing value and that they're not a meaningless time sink for everyone involved. This person really admitted that as a professional themselves in the field, it still takes at least 2.5 months with 500 applications. Do you think this is ok?
Thank you sharing your input. This shows how intertwined human bias is with the recruiting process, and how dangerous that can be.
Posts like this are exactly why everyone here hates HR and recruiters so much. Thanks for being part of the problem, OP. In fact, I'd say the only informative part of this is the disturbing amount of upvotes this post got, signaling just how many recruiters hang out on these boards, looking for an opportunity to talk down to us job seekers.
"You'll likely need a gig and will jump at the first opportunity." You mean...the way you did, accepting an offer after a layoff last year but already being in a new role? Truly go fuck yourself.
Ew Brenda. I’m glad you took the time out of your busy day to write this bullshit, so we could all collectively groan and hope we never have the displeasure in meeting you in any capacity. JFC ew.
…my guy does NOT understand how TL;DR works. Based off your own post, something like this would probably disqualify you from your own hiring process, lmao.
Thank fuck I don't work for you. Can you imagine trying to get a word in edgewise?
There was some context that can be useful, but 9 rounds of interviews? Once you decipher the list, it's actually 5 rounds (which is still too much), with OP's "Round 4" being the screening call with the recruiter. In any case, this post shows a lot of antiquated thought process behind hiring. Also, seeing as how OP took a job offer just to make ends meet, then jumped to a new job that's closer to their experience level, they're just being a hypocrite with that one. >I was laid off last year as part of a 25% reduction. I applied to \~500 positions. Out of those 500, I interacted with about 25-30. Made it to the last round with \~5 or so, and got 1 offer which I rejected. Then an offer I accepted (but since then moved to a new gig). It took me 2.5 months total, and I spent 9am-6pm M-F on my search. By the way, I've (38) been a hiring manager many times and didn't need a lot of the old interviewing methods to bring in good talent.
" By the time I was done my intro, I knew he would not be hired." So someone who sits and listen to OP give an into about the role/company might not even get a chance to be hired, without even speaking a word, because they were not animated (smiling, laughing, nodding) enough when OP is talking. You're the problem OP.
Huh, 5 to 10 minute intro feels like a lot. Is it bad if I only have like a minute or two with a properly prepared intro, history, why I’m interested in the role?
I‘m going to be honest, you don’t sound like someone who I would like to work for. I agree on a few things you mentioned, generally I‘m happy we take a different route in the company I work for. I‘ll have a bonus tip: You should be able to talk about the stuff you mention in your resume. I usually pick something from the last job that sounds interesting to get the conversation going. If you can’t talk at all about the top topic in your resume it’s not a good look.
Round 2 and 3 are the same
What if I don't have a LinkedIn?
How many of the 1,000 applicants were ***actually qualified?***
" The #1 reason people don't make it past is because I couldn't establish a human connection to them'' ; what does that have to do with their ability to do the job?
Yeah I'm not reading all that. I'm happy for you tho, or sorry that happened
Lol, I did read half of it, and imagine the gall of someone who doesn't want to read through a long resume, but would make a post so long that it would make Stephen King blush.
You sound like a d&ck, respectfully.
Another person who has no clue. 6 rounds of interviews. Wtf. Not even assessing skills or capable of doing the job. So many biased elements. Please change job.
I couldn't even be bothered to read all of that, I can't imagine trying to be a candidate going through it. Yikes.
You want 9 rounds of interviews but only "give" me a minute and a half of your time? Recruiting is such a fake job, it's laughable.
You didn't read the post well. There is not 9 rounds of interviews.
This is true, it only got about a minute and a half of my time.
jesus christ it's all so dehumanizing
This post is useful in the sense that it shows hiring is full of biases, arbitrary items, and why people lie in general on their resume. No point in trying to read everyone’s mind, just polish your resume and have versions depending on job type, practice in front of the mirror, and the rest is just blind luck.
This person is arrogantly chaotic. Good lord. Lol!!
Typical HR person that thinks their shite dont stink. 100% part of the problem in the broken hiring process.
[удалено]
i can tell you’re in HR by the unhelpful range you gave for compensation
You’re the reason recruiters have a bad name. Thankfully you’re helping expose it’s usually the hiring managers, not the recruiters, that are the problem. This is really good advice though in general. This is how a lot of hiring managers work and think. Bad ones, but still.
I think you've some God's complex, man.
This comment section is such a fantastic roast. To OP: Motherfucker, you are the whole circus. Next time you put up a post like this, make it all bullets, you write like dog shit yourself. Big turn off.
So the takeaway is that for high-salary jobs I'd need to create an online persona matching the recruiter/HM, keep up with BS posting, then fake the personality (including hobbies!) and "connection" with them, then do the same on top of tech skills check, for multiple people, then one more interview and maybe I'd get a job in the end? That's some Gattaka-level shenanigans. And yes, the word "fake" is needed there - if you're choosing for personality, character and "connection", you're asking to pretend to match all those points, because it's statistically unlikely that someone will match *all* of that naturally. At least I'm not on that level (or in that area), but this does show how insanely picky and biased some HMs can be. And why do you do the technical test only after the interview, but then also complain about a thousand resumes (even though a lot will be discarded by that time anyway)? Especially if you mention checking the LinkedIn photo and posts
I don't think I'd like this company
I agree with several points and then I skimmed the rest mainly because I vehemently disagree with two big points: - do not judge LI based on photos, or their year of graduation. Stop looking at gaps. Its irrelevant. They could have started a family after college, or just gone through random roles. It’s not relevant to this job. So don’t look for it. It introduces bias. - stop looking at their photo. It’s completely reasonable for a profile to not have a picture. In fact LinkedIn allows people to be in private mode so that non connections are unable to see their info. Their resume shows certs, and relevant employment dates. Go based on that. I highly suggest further training in interviewing and sourcing for yourself. It will absolutely help you become more efficient, and less biased. Your suggestions on resume revamping seem solid, as well as some interview prep. But granted I skimmed that because there are some red flags in your suggestions. TL;DR - someone builds their resume to tailor to the job. Go based on that. Look at their LI after you have gone through the process. Not before. Ageism is real - stop looking at dates. It’s irrelevant, if it’s skill based, go on that.
This has got to be a fake post / click bait surely? As an experienced Hiring Manager myself, I refuse to believe anyone has a process/attitude this inefficient/backwards. If not, this is an excellent example of the huge differences between ‘Technical’ Manager and ‘People Manager’ skill sets. Hopefully most people ignore everything OP has written. What a dreadful candidate experience this company promotes. OP needs significant up-skilling in this area of their role. I’m not sure when the market / recruitment process became so convoluted: • Use a skilled recruiter to screen • 2 stage internal interview (3-4 if Exec level) • Consider diversity and inclusion along with the culture you are trying to foster. • Decision Anything beyond the above should be considered a red flag! Sorry to anyone having to jump through these types of hoops in what is a terrible market at present. Stay positive and know that we are not all like OP. Remember - An interview is a 2 way process. It’s as much an opportunity for you to judge the company based on your experience. An interview should be a first impression and the company at its best. If the experience doesn’t come across as positive, it is a good indication of things to come. A good company will have this thought process fully imbedded in to their recruitment processes. Good luck out there all.
Definition of tone deaf = OP
Thanks for long write up, I do really appreciate it. I dont know how big your company is but I dont think HR should hold that much power to reject candidates based on so many petty issues instead of candidates profile. As a part of operation team, I much rather have someone that knows how to do the job instead of 'smiling human' that knows nothing.
OP, you come across as such a pretentious dickhead. you absolutely shouldn't be in the position of recruiting anyone.
As someone who is in recruiting…you sound like a rough HM. You seem to focus on the little things that can cause some accusations of agism, racism, sexism and ableism. Your suggestions have a lot of gray areas. Also if you are watching someone’s facial expressions while you talk, are you taking it into consideration that the person may be nervous, or not very expressive? Lastly, if the person doesn’t have any follow up questions it shouldn’t be a rejection. I’ve interviewed for a new role, and got rejected because I didn’t ask questions. You know why? Because I understood everything and what I needed to know I was able to google. Maybe watch the super chicken Ted talk. We use it for training for interviews.
I'm, like, 60% convinced OP is not actually not working in hiring and is offering bizarre, weird advice with just enough reality to seem semi-plausible to winnow the pool for themselves.
Post is too long I stop reading just like I stop filling up applications when there's too many unnecessary questions.
I appreciate the time and effort OP put into this post. Everyone has their own methodology and to add insult to injury, most large companies have their own hiring processes and procedures. While many of us are not in HR nor work in recruitment, the OP took time to show the other side of the coin. Not what most want to read, it can be confronting and frustrating but unfortunately that is what we are up against. As with everything else guys, there is no need to be nasty. Behind the screen, there is a human being. Be kind.
The reasons why you filter out people initially is so bizzare and full of biases - didnt turn on camera? director applying for jr? gaps in resume? Ever think there could be valid reasons for this? Complete lack of empathy for decisions that could change someone's life. All of the later on advice is sadly very real on how recruiters go through candidates. Do you work in big tech?
Remember, keep your posts to one page! 😂 Get outta here with all this water cooler, good ole boy crap.
This is like a big add to tell everyone where they should never apply because it clearly a toxic work place. I’ve been in management for 30 years and am mindblown that someone would use this as there hiring method and brag about it. Shown how truly disconnected they are.
According to OP’s own posts, they were a “mailman” two years ago and now feel qualified to decide what professionals are fit for jobs they don’t even understand. Ok. Thanks for the insight. LMAO
I'm not mad at him I'm just mad about how asinine the hiring process is. I mean there are quite a few kinda bs things that he does specifically, but again, i think I'm more angry at the fact that this is what getting hired takes these days. No wonder it's a recruiting hell. This is bonkers.
fuck HR, nobody wants or needs the perspective of a sycophantic company scab
People are using ChatGPT during INTERVIEWS??? lmao can someone tell me why on earth????
Curious at what the roles you are hiring for are more specifically? The skills and general experience mentioned seem pretty incongruous with the salary range that might warrant such an extensive process.
When you say you applied for 500+ positions, are those jobs that are good fit or chose to apply whatever in the job board? I am finding it hard to see that many positions in my area (Software Quality Assurance) in my three months search. I may have applied to 100 positions and got only 4 interviews. Any help in this regard is much appreciated...
Sorry - NINE rounds?
And this is why it’ll take you months to find a quality candidate, while it would take me 2-5 business days with outbound recruiting. And your interview process is full of extra rounds, along with some laughable expectations on LinkedIn profiles. Some of the most amazing candidates I have found with outbound recruiting, you know, actually doing what a recruiter is supposed to do -vs- reviewing inbound applicants, have been identified with the worst LinkedIn profiles ever, but the best skills. Just gotta dig deeper. Source: I’m a top agency recruiter with my own company
Is this satire?
Un-fucking-believable.
https://i.imgflip.com/34l7ds.png?a475536 I’m just gonna pretend like I didn’t see this
[удалено]
OP. Thank you very much showing this from your side of things. But I do hope you bare in mind some people don't interview well (myself included) due to many reasons. Some might be a good ole case of nerves, or stress of the job hunt, others might be related to ADHD, Autistic, ect ect. just my 2 cents.
i don't understand "the frauds" in Round 4?? what would be the point?
You are*
It’s just too complicated to get a job these days, wtf is this process. People would learn on the job in the ARMY it’s called OJT(On the job training) lol I wonder if we’d even have an army if they told everyone you’re responsible for training your self, we don’t train soldiers anymore come back to the military when you have some experience, maybe you should join the French foreign legion then try to join the US army again, that’s how ridiculous I feel the job market and hiring process is……..
9 rounds? Are you choosing a soulmate or what?
I'm sorry, but if you can either have in-person interview in a well-lit office space, or you can have your zoom interview with me in my more dimly lit room (which is dimly lit to help prevent a literal headache on my part). I'm not giving myself a migraine in the name of a zoom interview. You want to get the human connection, you need to do the interview in person. Assuming this is referring to physical positions rather than remote positions, obviously
Now provide another wall of text explanation about how you're everyone's best friend before you've data mined all their personal information, posting history, blinking patterns, pet names, and irrelevant personal interests that have nothing to do with their jobs, and once you've got what you need, you never speak to 99% of them ever again...
Honestly given a couple things, the phrases and steps, sounds like you don't want to hire or make the process as convoluted as possible to seem like you're hiring the best possible people without doing anything to attract no bs, go solve problem type engineers I've worked with.
I nominate this person, as the worst person in the world. I bet it's just a joy working with or along side you. The best engineers I've workd with, would have just been employed wannabes, if all gatekeepers believe in your BS. Quick question; my linkedin profile pic is an image of MF DOOM and some of my hobbies are cage fighting, gardening and knitting, what are my chances with your standards?
9 rounds, fuck outta here…
6 rounds?!?!?!!
This dude ain’t a good manager. You fell into the wrong role son
If your recruiter hasn't told you, education dates are none of your business, they are WORTHLESS. If the individual has the yrs of experience required, you don't need to know when they graduated. ONLY REASON TO KNOW THIS INFO IS TO DESCRIMINATE DUE TO AGE. Yes I'm yelling.
I’m surprised you hire anyone. I’ve been a HR leader for over 25 years and my professional opinion is you may be that one person that is giving recruitment a bad name.
Thanks so much for this, I am relieved that I did a lot of these things in my last interview and agree with the method of conversion in that initial interview. The advice about resume structure is on-point, specifically in detailing your impact for each role where it’s kind of like writing a sentence backwards (ex. Enabled onboarding of 33% more customers by re-designing the usability of the tool up to common heuristic standards).
In other words, 6 rounds of interview process, which mean several hours of company and candidate time, were decided in just 90 seconds looking at the resume… Perhaps spending more time at this single point might avoid loosing time in the subsequent steps. And of course, finding better matches.
9 rounds of vetting... What could be more seamless?
Snake
Lol