|
|
|
|
|
|
by malux85
10 days ago
|
|
|
Im on the hiring side, and I can tell you that these questions are there to serve one purpose only - to give the candidate a chance to stand out. We were getting some 30-40 applications a day when we were at peak search, and when you get so many, after a few weeks, you start looking for anomalies, show me some glint of greatness, a spark of wit, evidence of original thought, something to show youre not just pasting slop or ticking boxes. The candidate on the other side of this might say "but theres so many applications to do, I cant do that for every one" and maybe thats the crux, the candidate who puts in the extra effort to stand out will win, and thats the purpose of these questions. |
|
|
This is a big part of what I was saying in the post, people with your perspective want to put the responsibility for your job onto applicants. I have to perform for you. I have to impress you. And what you're asking me to do actually boils down to exactly "ticking boxes". It's really interesting you'd use that phrase.
I didn't get into this in the post, because I had other points to make, but dude, when I'm applying for a job, I don't even know who you are. It's a total crap shoot who's desk my application will land on, even if I can figure out who the hiring manager or technical lead is. I barely know what your company actually does, and have absolutely zero idea what would make me "stand out" or be an "anomaly" to you. All I have to go on is the job posting, company marketing and cyberstalking.
So I spend a couple hours trying to wrap my head around what would make me stand out for this specific combination of company, people, and posting, and I'm rarely closer to an honest answer than I was before I started. I can't get good signals on culture, tech, specific problems that need to be solved or anything useful to me that would make me excited about the position. I put in the effort, and anything I write will still be fluff that distills down to "I'm a good fit for the requirements of your position" (plus "my research didn't raise too many red flags", but that's implied).
And from my experience (I've been in the industry since 1999 and it's the same today as it ever was), the chances of that investment paying off for either of us are basically zero. You put in 30 seconds looking for "glints" in my application, I put in hours doing research. The end result is missing a potentially great match. The impact, however is that I have to keep trying and pray I can pay my mortgage next month, you can just whine to leadership about how tough hiring is and keep coasting, looking for people who are "not just pasting slop". There's an imbalance in ROI here and you need to acknowledge it.
I made a much broader point in my post, which seems to be getting lost. I get it, you're going through so many answers to "why do I want to work for XXX" looking for "evidence of original thought". It's so difficult, you don't have time to even bother with anyone that matches the posting, let alone reach out to your network or grow it by actually connecting with people (which will yield better results, per the reports I cited, and what you'll end up doing anyway, because of the realities of how people get hired).
That's what I urged people in a hiring position to do: connect with people. Can you imagine if you just had a basic resume screen and then focused your effort on making real-life connections with matches to grow your professional network, then hired from that? I would think it'd be a lot easier, in terms of cognitive load, than reading a bunch of nonsense answers looking for that "spark of wit". Like I said, it will yield higher returns. So why not do that? (genuine question)
Anyway, I was serious about connecting with you over email and sending you my resume, and I appreciate your perspective. I am very thankful that you took the time to read my post.