HR and Recruiment

[magpie_marty]

Just wondering peoples views of an industry that Australia rarely had,
How qualified is a HR Person?
And if so how can him or she have experience in the job applicants abilities?
My guess is NO,
Do they go straight from high school and the the big wide world of university and become experts?
Can a person read a resume in 30 second's and decide that a person is suited to a job or even an interview?

 

[_Mike_]

There's far more to working in HR than simply employing people.

 

[Scotland]

Most HR people are qualified. Doesn't make them useful.

 

[Catters 070911]

I personally think that the boss should be the one making the final decision.

HR can choose someone, but the manager has to work with him or her, so they should get the ultimate say in who gets hired.

I applied for a job, and the manager loved me. However, all hiring goes through Head Office, and I didn't get the job, whereas I would have if the person who would be my manager could hire me.

 

[Gigantic]

I personally think that the boss should be the one making the final decision.

HR can choose someone, but the manager has to work with him or her, so they should get the ultimate say in who gets hired.

I applied for a job, and the manager loved me. However, all hiring goes through Head Office, and I didn't get the job, whereas I would have if the person who would be my manager could hire me.

Any responsible workplace should be doing this. They need to know what type of person they're going to be working with.

I went through four stages to get my last job: online application, phone interview, face-to-face with HR and then final interview with a partner/director.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

If you're not getting traction with your job applications and don't seem to be getting to the interview stage, the problem is more than likely with you and not HR. While you might think that you have the abilities and you deserve an interview etc. etc., you're only one of potentially one hundred other applicants who also think they're s**t hot and management simply doesn't have time to interview everybody. Not getting an interview means your competition have a better resume, sold themselves better in their cover letter or have some sort of inside contact with the company. It sucks, but there's nothing to be gained by lashing out at the people who read your resume so just come to peace with the process.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

We've just put out an opening in my team and because HR is swamped, the 'call for a confidential discussion' is good old MC Extra Dollop. You know, I always wondered when I was actively seeking a new job, whether I should call the contact, make it seem like I was really keen, you know. If I'm the norm and not the exception, I'm glad I never did pick the phone up, because I instantly hate everyone who has called me up so far for wasting my time and I instinctively hope that their application is rubbish and I never have to speak to them again.

I have a new found appreciation for the crap HR deals with. I'm not sure why people would want to do it as a career (I guess there's always a need), but I know in my organisation it's a bloody hard gig and most of them aren't the standard cyborg HR types out of Central Casting; they're actually decent people who care about the staff. My experience is that HR people are either very good, or very bad at what they do, with not much in between.

If you're not getting traction with your job applications and don't seem to be getting to the interview stage, the problem is more than likely with you and not HR. While you might think that you have the abilities and you deserve an interview etc. etc., you're only one of potentially one hundred other applicants who also think they're s**t hot and management simply doesn't have time to interview everybody. Not getting an interview means your competition have a better resume, sold themselves better in their cover letter or have some sort of inside contact with the company. It sucks, but there's nothing to be gained by lashing out at the people who read your resume so just come to peace with the process.

Not always. You can be 'encouraged' to apply for an internal position and they put it out to market, but it's really just a formality, you've got the job and no-one else really has a chance. I've been on the right side of that recently and I wonder how many times it's been the other way round, where I've genuinely been shocked not to get an interview.

 

[Dee Snider]

Just wondering peoples views of an industry that Australia rarely had,
How qualified is a HR Person?
And if so how can him or she have experience in the job applicants abilities?
My guess is NO,
Do they go straight from high school and the the big wide world of university and become experts?
Can a person read a resume in 30 second's and decide that a person is suited to a job or even an interview?

Hiring as you call it is a small yet very important part of the HR remit. I've managed Global HR functions and Postgraduate Quals (Masters, Grad Cert etc) are mandatory at this level. Having said that, only experience (success and failure) teaches you how to make good decisions!

My view has and always will be that HR owns the recruitment process - hiring managers own their recruitment decisions. It's not a science that's for sure and from a candidate's perspective I understand it can be a frustrating time. The Talent Acquisition team will usually generate a shortlist of candidates, provide that to the hiring Manager who will determine which ones he/she wants to interview based off the CV and cover letter.

As a heads up, AI is taking off - more and more organisations are using automated software to sort applications. The bigger the company or recruitment firm engaged to recruit on behalf of a company, the more likely they are to use this software which sorts on key words/competencies & other selection criteria. Therefore, you need to tailor your CV to the job requirements in the advertisement. Don't just send a standard CV to every role - tailor your application and directly address the specifics asked for in the advertisement. No more, no less.

Good luck.

 

[magpie_marty]

Excellent response,
But can you detail how you employ a person to a position or even consider a person for a position that you or other HR people have never done?

 

[burge13]

Agree with those who say HR people are either very good, or very bad. Bigger the business, worse HR is generally my experience

Job hunts can be BS regardless. Can't get a job without experience but can't get experience without a job. WTF are jobseekers supposed to do? We've had to hire so many dolts because they're got 'experience' yet when they rock up they can't even use Excel (public service). Or young workforce are complained about for being 'hopeless' and 'want everything yesterday' but jesus christ the workforce/management does them no favours whatsoever in many, many fields.

 

[magpie_marty]

burge13
If they rely on resumes i am flabbergasted any resume can include a bunch of BS re skills etc even referees,
I call resumes lie sheets!

My best time with an internal HR person and during the interview i had to stop and answer phones and serve customers.
He asked me "Can you stop that?"
I replied i am the only person in the store shall i have the customers wait?

Which brings back to why and how a HR person that has never done a job they are interviewing a person for can make a rational decision?

 

[Dee Snider]

Excellent response,
But can you detail how you employ a person to a position or even consider a person for a position that you or other HR people have never done?

We don't.

If the Financial Controller is looking for a Finance Manager or Snr Accountant - the Financial Controller makes the hiring decision. If an Engineering Director is looking for a Program Manager or Systems Engineer - the Engineering Director makes the hiring decision. I support them in the process. If I need a Compensation & Benefits specialist - I hire them.

During the interview(s), you will be assessed in two main ways - technically (can you 'technically' perform the role) and behaviourally (how do you go about your work/will you fit in/do you avoid confrontation/do you handle pressure/are you an arsehole who blames everyone else etc plus analysis of individual personality assessment results (if this have been done as part of the recruitment process).

Technical assessment
The hiring manager makes an assessment of the technical capabilities of the person they are interviewing versus the technical expertise required to perform the role. In other words - "can this person (who I am going to have to manage) actually do what I need them to do?". Only the hiring manager can determine this. Not HR.

Behavioural observation
The HR interviewer would advise on the behavioural observations/cultural fit etc. of the candidate based on what they have seen/heard in the candidate's responses to the questions they asked (questions designed specifically to flesh this out from you whether you are aware of it or not). Plus review the Personality Profile Questionnaire - if one was completed - with the Manager.

Decision Time
the two (hiring manager & HR person) will then get together and calibrate. It's a joint effort, but at the end of the day, the hiring manager retains decision making authority over who works for them in their department. HR will not do this for you.

Note: A resume plays a part in getting you interviewed, it does not get you hired. If you bullshit on your CV the hiring manager and/or I will find out very quickly in your interview.

Hope that helps de-mistify the process.

 

[magpie_marty]

We don't.

If the Financial Controller is looking for a Finance Manager or Snr Accountant - the Financial Controller makes the hiring decision. If an Engineering Director is looking for a Program Manager or Systems Engineer - the Engineering Director makes the hiring decision. I support them in the process. If I need a Compensation & Benefits specialist - I hire them.

During the interview(s), you will be assessed in two main ways - technically (can you 'technically' perform the role) and behaviourally (how do you go about your work/will you fit in/do you avoid confrontation/do you handle pressure/are you an arsehole who blames everyone else etc plus analysis of individual personality assessment results (if this have been done as part of the recruitment process).

Technical assessment
The hiring manager makes an assessment of the technical capabilities of the person they are interviewing versus the technical expertise required to perform the role. In other words - "can this person (who I am going to have to manage) actually do what I need them to do?". Only the hiring manager can determine this. Not HR.

Behavioural observation
The HR interviewer would advise on the behavioural observations/cultural fit etc. of the candidate based on what they have seen/heard in the candidate's responses to the questions they asked (questions designed specifically to flesh this out from you whether you are aware of it or not). Plus review the Personality Profile Questionnaire - if one was completed - with the Manager.

Decision Time
the two (hiring manager & HR person) will then get together and calibrate. It's a joint effort, but at the end of the day, the hiring manager retains decision making authority over who works for them in their department. HR will not do this for you.

Note: A resume plays a part in getting you interviewed, it does not get you hired. If you bullshit on your CV the hiring manager and/or I will find out very quickly in your interview.

Hope that helps de-mistify the process.

Hey excellent reading and detail,
I think we are talking 2 different things regarding HR.

And that would be internal HR versus External HR?
To perhaps refine my discussion it is more external HR companies that get employed to advertise for a potential candidate and review potential people.
Your feed back would be much appreciated if you have time.

Regards,
Marty

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Put in a responce to the key selection criteria along with your CV and cover letter.

The applications to the position I mentioned above topped 1000 pages total and I couldn't believe how many didn't bother to provide a response to the KSC (or how many had just done a generic cover letter and CV for what was obviously a bulk application dump, without mentioning our organisation or the role). Makes it a lot easier to just disregard them.

 

[Scotland]

Put in a responce to the key selection criteria along with your CV and cover letter.

The applications to the position I mentioned above topped 1000 pages total and I couldn't believe how many didn't bother to provide a response to the KSC (or how many had just done a generic cover letter and CV for what was obviously a bulk application dump, without mentioning our organisation or the role). Makes it a lot easier to just disregard them.

Chicken and egg.

When you are on the other side of the fence tailoring an application to a specific position, pouring over the criteria etc. and then you get the same generic autoreply email coming back you do say to yourself '* it why did I spend an hour doing this when I could've just done a 5 minute copy paste job and gone to the pub?'. Obviously when you are reviewing (or not in most cases) a large number of CVs then you are not going to give every applicant a hand written note, but everyone's time is valuable. When you see a job posting that looks like someone physically took your CV and made a job description out of it and you get generic bullshit back you do have a momentary urge to brick someone/something.

This took me a 60 second field search of emails:

We have received your application for the position of XXX. After careful consideration, unfortunately on this occasion your application has not been successful.

We will retain your candidate file in our database and may inform you of job openings that match your profile if you selected this option. We also invite you to visit the Career Section on our Web site regularly.

Thank you for taking the time to submit your application for the position of XXX

Your application has been processed and assessed in line with the specific requirements for this position, and after careful consideration we regret to advise that you have been unsuccessful in this instance.

Thank you for registering with XXX. We have considered your submission for the above position, along with those of other candidates and regretfully on this occasion you were unsuccessful.

Thank you for your interest in the above position.

Very careful consideration has been given to your application and whilst you have many relevant attributes, unfortunately, on this occasion your application has not been successful.

Thank you for your interest in XXX and for the time you have taken in completing your application. Unfortunately, on this occasion, you have been unsuccessful for this position.

So if you are ever surprised why people 'didn't bother', this is what comes back the other way...

 

[toxic]

Chicken and egg.

When you are on the other side of the fence tailoring an application to a specific position, pouring over the criteria etc. and then you get the same generic autoreply email coming back you do say to yourself '**** it why did I spend an hour doing this when I could've just done a 5 minute copy paste job and gone to the pub?'. Obviously when you are reviewing (or not in most cases) a large number of CVs then you are not going to give every applicant a hand written note, but everyone's time is valuable. When you see a job posting that looks like someone physically took your CV and made a job description out of it and you get generic ******** back you do have a momentary urge to brick someone/something.

This took me a 60 second field search of emails:











So if you are ever surprised why people 'didn't bother', this is what comes back the other way...

My business recently advertised for a part time (school hours) role.
Basically set your own hours, own days as long it equated to 16-20 hours.
We had 420 applications in 10 days before taking the role down.

Are you advocating a personal response to each applicant?

 

[Scotland]

No, in fact I said this:

Obviously when you are reviewing (or not in most cases) a large number of CVs then you are not going to give every applicant a hand written note

Are you advocating a personal application from each applicant? The focus is always on how many applications but never on how many applications are actually being prepared by each applicant and the time that goes into that.

Generic screening, feedback etc breeds generic applications. Is the best applicant always successful? Of course not.

 

[toxic]

No, in fact I said this:



Are you advocating a personal application from each applicant? The focus is always on how many applications but never on how many applications are actually being prepared by each applicant and the time that goes into that.

Generic screening, feedback etc breeds generic applications. Is the best applicant always successful? Of course not.

I'm not disagreeing, Just curious

What constitutes an amount to instigate the "everyone gets a response" criteria?

 

[Catters 070911]

If you're not getting traction with your job applications and don't seem to be getting to the interview stage, the problem is more than likely with you and not HR. While you might think that you have the abilities and you deserve an interview etc. etc., you're only one of potentially one hundred other applicants who also think they're **** hot and management simply doesn't have time to interview everybody. Not getting an interview means your competition have a better resume, sold themselves better in their cover letter or have some sort of inside contact with the company. It sucks, but there's nothing to be gained by lashing out at the people who read your resume so just come to peace with the process.

Resumes are bullshit, though, and any company that picks based solely on resumes are fools.

Resumes are like dating profiles, people fudge them a lot. People can say almost anything in their resume, and unless they are going to follow up each and every resume, then they can get through to interview stage by lying, while someone who tells the truth in their resume and is honest can be overlooked.

Resumes don't tell if a person will be reliable, show up to work on time, be respectful, be honest in their dealings, can work well with other people etc. People are going to put themselves in the best light in resumes, so they won't tell the company any of their flaws. Only after hiring someone who has experience and ticks all the boxes, do you find out if they are tardy, or steal from the company, or want to be paid more for staying two minutes after quitting time.

A great worker is more than just experience, grades and past jobs. It is the whole person, and you can only get to know them by meeting the candidate, not by HR reading "puff pieces".

 

[Scotland]

I'm not disagreeing, Just curious

What constitutes an amount to instigate the "everyone gets a response" criteria?

Depends how much time you are putting into it and how many CVs you get. Recruiters tend to be prima donnas whose time is incredibly valuable while everyone else is expendable. Actually reviewing hundreds of CVs and coming up with a shortlist is a nightmare, but if you chuck most of them away before you start it's really no that arduous.

If you get 500 and read 10 or 20 then it's reasonable to respond to the 10 or 20. Anyone who is actually interviewed deserves better than a generic 'yeah but no but' email.

If whittling down the 500 to 10 or 20 is either a process of random chance or some arbitrary culling measure then I personally don't think it's unreasonable to have an auto reply that says 'we didn't even read your CV'. I see nothing wrong with transparency. Some people want cuddles but I'd rather know where I actually stand. It can be stressful trying to figure out where you went wrong but if your CV made it onto the 'no' pile because it was Calibri and they wanted Comic Sans then that's useful to know.

Also as a potential job seeker I would rather submit generic details to a database and then be given the opportunity to provide a tailored application etc. than spend a lot of time writing a cover letter, finessing the CV, dotting Is and crossing Ts etc. for something that's a 95% chance of being binned without being read anyway.

Just my 2c.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

No, in fact I said this:



Are you advocating a personal application from each applicant? The focus is always on how many applications but never on how many applications are actually being prepared by each applicant and the time that goes into that.

Generic screening, feedback etc breeds generic applications. Is the best applicant always successful? Of course not.

Isn't there a massive power imbalance here? In a world where almost every field that posts job adverts has a rate of unemployment/underemployment, the job applicant has no power in the process because you need the job whereas the job has dozens of applicants it could go to and the position advertiser is really not affected by poor quality submissions from applicants. Notwithstanding that generic "no thanks" responses are frustrating as * when you've tipped a lot of time into the application but this is probably why there's no focus on what goes back the other way.

Resumes are ********, though, and any company that picks based solely on resumes are fools.

Resumes are like dating profiles, people fudge them a lot. People can say almost anything in their resume, and unless they are going to follow up each and every resume, then they can get through to interview stage by lying, while someone who tells the truth in their resume and is honest can be overlooked.

Resumes don't tell if a person will be reliable, show up to work on time, be respectful, be honest in their dealings, can work well with other people etc. People are going to put themselves in the best light in resumes, so they won't tell the company any of their flaws. Only after hiring someone who has experience and ticks all the boxes, do you find out if they are tardy, or steal from the company, or want to be paid more for staying two minutes after quitting time.

A great worker is more than just experience, grades and past jobs. It is the whole person, and you can only get to know them by meeting the candidate, not by HR reading "puff pieces".

I don't know of any companies that hire solely off resumes. I do know a lot of companies who narrow down a pool of applicants on nothing but resumes and cover letters, and barring a larger company that uses third party software like taleo or pageup, that's basically every employer under the sun. The truth is that there are many positions being advertised that will have so many applicants that barely 5% of people who apply will actually be asked to come to an interview or have their referees conferred with because businesses aren't willing to devote the resources to do that for every candidate, it's a massive logistical ask for HR to spend hundreds of hours on the phones to referees (most of which haven't even spoken to the applicant in years) but even moreso for people that aren't usually involved in the hiring process to sit on a panel for every, single applicant for every, single role.

People don't use resumes in the hiring process because they're fantastically accurate or are a literal window to the soul, they use them because it takes five minutes to read a resume which can be done at any time of the day whereas it takes an hour to interview somebody. And it is not practical, nor will it ever be, to conduct an interview for any more than a handful of applicants.

 

[Catters 070911]

Isn't there a massive power imbalance here? In a world where almost every field that posts job adverts has a rate of unemployment/underemployment, the job applicant has no power in the process because you need the job whereas the job has dozens of applicants it could go to and the position advertiser is really not affected by poor quality submissions from applicants. Notwithstanding that generic "no thanks" responses are frustrating as **** when you've tipped a lot of time into the application but this is probably why there's no focus on what goes back the other way.


I don't know of any companies that hire solely off resumes. I do know a lot of companies who narrow down a pool of applicants on nothing but resumes and cover letters, and barring a larger company that uses third party software like taleo or pageup, that's basically every employer under the sun. The truth is that there are many positions being advertised that will have so many applicants that barely 5% of people who apply will actually be asked to come to an interview or have their referees conferred with because businesses aren't willing to devote the resources to do that for every candidate, it's a massive logistical ask for HR to spend hundreds of hours on the phones to referees (most of which haven't even spoken to the applicant in years) but even moreso for people that aren't usually involved in the hiring process to sit on a panel for every, single applicant for every, single role.

People don't use resumes in the hiring process because they're fantastically accurate or are a literal window to the soul, they use them because it takes five minutes to read a resume which can be done at any time of the day whereas it takes an hour to interview somebody. And it is not practical, nor will it ever be, to conduct an interview for any more than a handful of applicants.

Then employers shouldn't scream when they don't end up with the best candidate then.

I would have thought that an employer who is paying someone a wage (and many hate having to pay any more in wages than necessary) and has customers who expect the best, would put a lot of time and effort into finding the RIGHT person, not just the person who writes the best resume.

If an employer isn't prepared to invest in a potential employee, then how can he ask that the employee be fully invested in the company? Sometimes, you get back what you are prepared to give out.

But maybe many companies prefer to have an acceptance of mediocrity.

This is why I think people looking for work shouldn't put much faith in a site like "Indeed". It is a free site, and employers will post on it, and some may post there, only to withdraw it the next day, because they have now decided to just do the required job himself, and save on a wage. A site where employers have to pay to advertise would be better, since if an employer is prepared to pay to find someone, then they are serious and are more likely to invest in the process, and get better candidates.

All judging applicants by their resume does is that you find the best resume-writer, not necessarily the best fit for your company. No applicant is perfect, so trying to find little flaws to disqualify someone in their resume, limits the field, and might mean that there are less suitable candidates. There has to be better ways of separating the wheat from the chaff, but if the reason to rely on resumes is convenience and because you can't be bothered to put some proper time into the process, then how seriously are you looking for someone.

Look, I think a lot of employers don't care if they actually end up with anyone or not. Many are workaholics, and would be happy to just do all the work themselves. Some might post on free sites, seeing if they can get a candidate who fits their criteria, and if not, then he will just do the job himself. At least then, it is one less wage, with super, time-and-a-half, and all the other benefits that cripple businesses, that many employers loathe paying.

Either the employer wants someone to work or him, or he doesn't. Either put the time into considering people who apply, or stop wasting our time and getting our hopes up.

 

[magpie_marty]

Isn't there a massive power imbalance here? In a world where almost every field that posts job adverts has a rate of unemployment/underemployment, the job applicant has no power in the process because you need the job whereas the job has dozens of applicants it could go to and the position advertiser is really not affected by poor quality submissions from applicants. Notwithstanding that generic "no thanks" responses are frustrating as **** when you've tipped a lot of time into the application but this is probably why there's no focus on what goes back the other way.


I don't know of any companies that hire solely off resumes. I do know a lot of companies who narrow down a pool of applicants on nothing but resumes and cover letters, and barring a larger company that uses third party software like taleo or pageup, that's basically every employer under the sun. The truth is that there are many positions being advertised that will have so many applicants that barely 5% of people who apply will actually be asked to come to an interview or have their referees conferred with because businesses aren't willing to devote the resources to do that for every candidate, it's a massive logistical ask for HR to spend hundreds of hours on the phones to referees (most of which haven't even spoken to the applicant in years) but even moreso for people that aren't usually involved in the hiring process to sit on a panel for every, single applicant for every, single role.

People don't use resumes in the hiring process because they're fantastically accurate or are a literal window to the soul, they use them because it takes five minutes to read a resume which can be done at any time of the day whereas it takes an hour to interview somebody. And it is not practical, nor will it ever be, to conduct an interview for any more than a handful of applicants.

So just to clarify a HR person will not read every resume?
If that is the case why have them?

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Then employers shouldn't scream when they don't end up with the best candidate then.

I would have thought that an employer who is paying someone a wage (and many hate having to pay any more in wages than necessary) and has customers who expect the best, would put a lot of time and effort into finding the RIGHT person, not just the person who writes the best resume.

If an employer isn't prepared to invest in a potential employee, then how can he ask that the employee be fully invested in the company? Sometimes, you get back what you are prepared to give out.

But maybe many companies prefer to have an acceptance of mediocrity.

This is why I think people looking for work shouldn't put much faith in a site like "Indeed". It is a free site, and employers will post on it, and some may post there, only to withdraw it the next day, because they have now decided to just do the required job himself, and save on a wage. A site where employers have to pay to advertise would be better, since if an employer is prepared to pay to find someone, then they are serious and are more likely to invest in the process, and get better candidates.

All judging applicants by their resume does is that you find the best resume-writer, not necessarily the best fit for your company. No applicant is perfect, so trying to find little flaws to disqualify someone in their resume, limits the field, and might mean that there are less suitable candidates. There has to be better ways of separating the wheat from the chaff, but if the reason to rely on resumes is convenience and because you can't be bothered to put some proper time into the process, then how seriously are you looking for someone.

Look, I think a lot of employers don't care if they actually end up with anyone or not. Many are workaholics, and would be happy to just do all the work themselves. Some might post on free sites, seeing if they can get a candidate who fits their criteria, and if not, then he will just do the job himself. At least then, it is one less wage, with super, time-and-a-half, and all the other benefits that cripple businesses, that many employers loathe paying.

Either the employer wants someone to work or him, or he doesn't. Either put the time into considering people who apply, or stop wasting our time and getting our hopes up.

I'm going to be honest, all of this best resume writer, employers not wanting the best candidate and bosses not even wanting the role filled is just pure s**t that's got no basis behind it whatsoever and reeks of somebody who's just horribly jaded by how the hiring process typically works so I don't see a lot of value in me trying to argue differently.

I will note that you seem to have this extraordinary misunderstanding of how much time and work needs to be devoted to properly vetting candidates through face-to-face interviews and by calling referees, often when job postings receive dozens of applicants. You seem to think that these are tasks that take only a few minutes where they can holistically take several hours. You seem to think that employers actually have 100 free hours in a couple of weeks to actually perform these tasks, as if those weirdos that work in HR literally do nothing else all day except manage the recruitment of one role. Hell, most small businesses don't even have a dedicated HR person, so you're expecting an employee to stop acting in their own role for a week while they do nothing but call referees and do interviews. If businesses actually allocated all of these man hours to hire one person, they'd go broke.

Just to give you some perspective, it costs $40,000 in overheads for my company to fill a vacancy. $40,000 in devoting company employees to being a part of a process with generally 100+ applicants, of which 10 go to a short list for interviews.

The flip side is that if you can't be ****ed to spend half an hour creating a proper resume and a relevant, role-specific cover letter for the job you're applying for, something that's purely for your own benefit and nobody else's, then why on earth would anyone think you're ever going to put in an acceptable level of effort at work? This is the same attitude you see with grad students who average D's at university and don't understand why graduate employers care that they've only ever produced work at 50% standard. You can expect that if you put 5 minutes into sending a generic CV and cover letter riddled with grammatical errors that you have barely updated since you were 21, they'll probably only read it once. Stuff like that isn't being bad at resume writing, it's ******* laziness that any employer will see right through.

Either the applicant wants the job, or he doesn't. Either put the time into your application so the employer knows you're capable of doing things to a high standard or stop wasting resources on the other end.

So just to clarify a HR person will not read every resume?

Nobody said that.

 

[Catters 070911]

I'm going to be honest, all of this best resume writer, employers not wanting the best candidate and bosses not even wanting the role filled is just pure **** that's got no basis behind it whatsoever and reeks of somebody who's just horribly jaded by how the hiring process typically works so I don't see a lot of value in me trying to argue differently.

I will note that you seem to have this extraordinary misunderstanding of how much time and work needs to be devoted to properly vetting candidates through face-to-face interviews and by calling referees, often when job postings receive dozens of applicants. You seem to think that these are tasks that take only a few minutes where they can holistically take several hours. You seem to think that employers actually have 100 free hours in a couple of weeks to actually perform these tasks, as if those weirdos that work in HR literally do nothing else all day except manage the recruitment of one role. Hell, most small businesses don't even have a dedicated HR person, so you're expecting an employee to stop acting in their own role for a week while they do nothing but call referees and do interviews. If businesses actually allocated all of these man hours to hire one person, they'd go broke.

Just to give you some perspective, it costs $40,000 in overheads for my company to fill a vacancy. $40,000 in devoting company employees to being a part of a process with generally 100+ applicants, of which 10 go to a short list for interviews.

The flip side is that if you can't be ****** to spend half an hour creating a proper resume and a relevant, role-specific cover letter for the job you're applying for, something that's purely for your own benefit and nobody else's, then why on earth would anyone think you're ever going to put in an acceptable level of effort at work? This is the same attitude you see with grad students who average D's at university and don't understand why graduate employers care that they've only ever produced work at 50% standard. You can expect that if you put 5 minutes into sending a generic CV and cover letter riddled with grammatical errors that you have barely updated since you were 21, they'll probably only read it once. Stuff like that isn't being bad at resume writing, it's ******* laziness that any employer will see right through.

Either the applicant wants the job, or he doesn't. Either put the time into your application so the employer knows you're capable of doing things to a high standard or stop wasting resources on the other end.


Nobody said that.

You sound like an employer.

If it takes so much time to vet applicants, can how come some employers can find time to look at a potential employee's facebook page or social media accounts, prying into personal business, to determine their "character"?

Why call all referees and past employers? One of my past employers died, so there would be little point in calling him. Employers who you worked for years ago may not remember you as much, or may have retired, gone broke or not be working there anymore. Maybe call one or two random past employers who you can contact, and get a feel of it. Calling everyone on the list is not necessary if the employer doesn't have enough time.

How many people work in HR? If there were ten people working in the department, and each of them read ten resumes a day (most resumes are two or three pages, so it shouldn't take long) over ten days, you have looked at the resumes of 1,000 candidates. So in a week and a half, you have read the majority of resumes that hit your desk. Unless there are a massive amount of sexual harrassment complaints that HR have to deal with, I don't see why they don't have the time to look at resumes.

Or here's an idea. Why not hire more people to read over the resumes? There you go, you have employed more people. Oh, I forgot, you would have to call up their referees first and check every job they claim to have worked at, in order to do that.

Besides, aren't there software programs that eliminate resumes that don't contain key words? So, when they use software and care if you use insider terms or not, then don't tell me full consideration is being given to resumes.

I've worked in small businesses, and there aren't over a thousand candidates applying for the one small business, so it is manageable. Also, small businesses are usually more desperate for someone, so they are happy just to have someone who knows the job, shows up and works with customers.

You say about the cost of hiring. If it takes so much time, and costs so much to fill a position, then why do you even want to hire someone anyway? Wouldn't it be better to just do the work yourself and save on a wage and all the hassle of hiring, and you probably know the job better than anyone else anyway? Many employers are workaholics, and would rather do the work themselves, and save money, than hire someone else. Why not do this, and let the unemployment levels grow?

Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if many employees advertise a position to "cast their net and see if there is anyone out there", but if they can't find anyone, he will just do it himself.

Also, how do you test some of the intrinsics of a potential employee? How do you know that they won't constantly show up late, steal from you, or be disrespectful to you, other employees or customers? And once you hire someone, because of "unfair dismissal laws", you are most likely stuck with this person. Candidates can lie in resumes, or "puff themselves up" and even may be able to get through the interview stage, through charm and saying all the right things. But the most experienced candidate who had a great CV and performed excellent in the interview, can drop the act once they are hired and display bad habits, even behind the employer's back. Some candidates know how to beat the system and skate through, while others who would be better workers are held back because of lack of experience, or because they failed to use key terms in their resume.

You say either the candidate wants the job or not. Well, that cuts both ways, and either a company wants the position filled or not. Employers shouldn't go on free sites like "Indeed" and "Seek" unless they are desperate to fill the position, and so will be flexible if a great candidate shows up who didn't use key phrases or follows every step of the process to the letter. Resumes don't tell the whole story.