Hacker News Reader

Depends on the position. I've had some openings where several hundred people applied. I don't have time to read 100 resumes, so anything that filters things down is good. Other positions HR has told me there have been no applicants in 2 weeks, and we need to open up the job description somehow.

For programming positions I safely take anybody who knows how to program. It doesn't matter if you know C++ or not (we do most of our work in C++ - you can substitute any language), by the time IT gets you a computer you will know enough C++ to be left on your own. However except in the case of obviously bad jobs (anyone want to do complex merges all day - I have a job opening that is essentially that) such a job opening would give me too many resumes to read.

Don't read 100 resumes. Read until you get one that you think looks good.

From that, figure out your true grading criteria. What made you discard others? What sparked your interest? Write these things down.

For example, I recently got to the following criteria:

* more than 2 years in related jobs

* worked with Linux, rather than tossing it in as a keyword

* worked in a process-driven environment

* evidence of having written programs or scripts

and then a bunch of things that looked like minor positives.

Then you can hand the whole pile to a junior and ask them to reject anyone who doesn't have all the real requirements, and write down the number of minor positives on the rest. Sort by that number.

Now you have a handful of resumes, and hopefully a better understanding of what the position really is.

How do you reconcile "too many resumes to read" with the meme that there is a massive hiring shortage?

There is an unlimited number of unqualified people who apply to almost every tech job hoping to get lucky.

Depends on the situation. My comment was over time. I've hired in recessions where there were many people looking. I've hired in good times where few people were looking. Right now my industry is going through hard times, so if somebody finds a new job I probably will not be allowed to hire a replacement.

I'm hiring for an established team. The team can teach you what you need to know so long as you are "smart and get things done" (Joel on Software) If there is only one or two people experience matters more because there are not experts to help you learn what you need to know. Even on my team we can teach you, but if we don't have to that is better yet. If my team suddenly needed to write Java - none of us know Java and so probably would limit our search to Java experts - someone to teach us.

There are also cases where there is a shortage of people willing to work for less than the market wage.

There are cases where one city has a lot of jobs, but the next city a few hundred miles away doesn't. In theory people can move to a new city but that has enough personal implications that people often will not.

Maybe they are actually offering market rate wages?

Some of the places that complain about not being able to find people, are offering far below market rate salaries.

Recruiting, filtering, and screening have become a perpetuum mobile industry keeping everyone’s out. I’m getting rejection emails from junior people with clearly kimited knowledge about the technology (at least they are polite enough to send it though). I swear one more time I’ll hear about talent or IT workforce shortage.

I don't think there's a talent shortage problem, I think there's a recruiter problem.

Though they certainly aren't helping much (and in many ways are quite simply harmful), recruiters are more of a "pain signal" than a problem source as such. The deeper problem is that the whole process (or rather, the lack thereof that many companies practice) itself is so broken, on so many levels. (Or more specifically: the expectations people have from this process, on both sides of the table).

The recruiters? They're just trying to make a living - and doing the best they can with the broken models, and let's not forget, bad data presented to them - again, from both sides. To the extent that they're to "blame", it's just that through their education (read: life choices made), they just don't know any better than to simply accept the process for what it is - and try to milk it for a buck or two.

>"The recruiters? They're just trying to make a living - and doing the best they can with the broken models, and let's not forget, bad data presented to them - again, from both sides."

They're doing the best they can with the broken models?

Let's step back and consider some behaviors by recruiters that almost nobody in tech will find unusual:

"Ghosting" - the practice of ignoring and stopping all communications with candidates after they have committed their time have undergone interviews.

Failing to exercise any sense of professionalism in their communications - like sending emails with spelling errors or that lack basic punctuation. One sentence emails without so much as a salutation or using "Hey," as a salutation. Details matter when someone is representing your candidacy.

Not using a calendar app to send out invites for interviews.

Reaching out to candidates to gauge their interest in a role and then never following up with them when a candidate takes the time to speak with them and expresses an interest.

The list goes on and on. These have nothing to do with unrealistic expectations or broken models. These are basic business skills, etiquette and decency.

In 2017, you'll never truly disappoint yourself if you expect about as much out of a recruiter call as you do out of a Tinder match.

Oh they quite definitely suck - even when "doing the best they can".

The spin I'm trying to put on this is -- they exist solely for one reason: to fill a vacuum. The vacuum created by the fact that both sides (mostly the employer, but also candidates) perceive that there's some value for them. Despite massive (and almost overwhelming) evidence to the contrary.

So my take is... to get to the root of the problem, focus on the vacuum, not on the dregs that rush into fill it.

Not using a calendar app to send out invites for interviews.

Or using them, but being too lazy (or just uneducated) to figure out this pesky time zone stuff.

So you're absolutely right -- the list goes on and on.

I worked with HR a bit. The people were the sweetest I've worked with, but the forms they had me make were full of legalese, and their procedures were algorithmic, military executions.

My theory is they are battle-scarred by a few bad apples, who crop up here and there, now and then. These employees were high maintenance, imperiled the company, even sued. As the article said, "a good part of Human Resources time is spent managing various forms of drama."

I'm not saying that if you ever sued your employer you were wrong. Since employers are people, and employees are people, both are equally capable of corruption. What I'm saying is, if everyone acted in good faith, maybe we wouldn't need HR. But the same could be said about many things in life.

I've been a contract recruiter for most of my career, and while we could have a excellent conversation about how relatively new the recruiting function is to corporations, and how it has evolved, and where I see it going.. I have to say I am honestly offended by your statement that contract recruiters generally "They are amongst the most clueless, unprofessional and inefficient people working at these tech companies" and "has no real vested interest the process or how they represent the company"

This statement is patently absurd and offensive.

Yes, there are bad recruiters out there, as there are bad sales reps, customer service people, and even shitty engineers who leave a lot of shitty code in places it shouldn't be.

Please stop generalizing

Are you really so unaware of how bad the reputation of recruiters is in the tech industry? If so I'm afraid you might be severely out of touch.

You might note that my comment resonated with more than a few people considering its position at the top of the discussion.

>"This statement is patently absurd and offensive."

It's odd that rather than consider any merits of another's observations you instead dismiss them as "absurdity" without providing a single argument as to why.

Bad reputations evolve over time. And "recruiting" by the way is not new. It has been a staple in HR since the first dot com boom.

Your claim that there are lots of people out there who are bad at their jobs is nothing more than the moral equivalence fallacy. For someone so offended that's a pretty weak argument.

And lastly if you reread my comment you will see that I said it is not all and recognized that there are some excellent recruiters out there. Its the third sentence.