Ask HN: What do you hate about finding a new job?
13 comments
Probably the biggest thing that ticks me off is hiring managers who don't even know what they are looking for and as a result 'shop' thru candidates essentially wasting your time. I've seen this before when I was rejected for a position, and it got filled only to be reposted after 3 months. Go figure!
Just went through a job hunt myself and here's what really stood out to me about the process.
1) The sheer latency. This is by far the biggest annoyance. From first contact, to phone interviews, to onsite, to decision...generally a month or more passes. It's awful.
2) No up-front salary expectations. Have had so many job interviews that went well and suddenly turned around when they were like "soooo...salary?" and they were looking to get a senior engineer on the cheap. What a waste of everyone's time. Compounded by the above bit about latency.
3) Literally any company that uses that horrible ICIMS system I will not even bother applying anymore. I saw a number of job adverts looking for remote engineers from Red Hat, Rackspace, Amazon (AWS division), and a few more. The only way from the advert to actually apply was through that ICIMS system. This universally (not exaggerating) meant that I would submit my resume and it would sit in limbo for 2+ months (Red Hat was the fastest, with a turnaround time of 2 months). At this point, if a company wants me to apply through this system, I just won't even bother with them. They'll need to contact me first through a hiring manager, internal recruiter, or something similar so I can be guaranteed the process will actually be started at all.
4) This one's a little more specific but consulting agencies that want to put you on some of their contracts and never bother talking to you can go suck eggs. A specific one had an "urgent need" (exact words) for a certain type of engineer. I talked to the owner for a bit...I followed up for over two months with me instigating the conversation every time. At the end of the two months I figured I would stop bothering and if they really needed an engineer like me so urgently, they could initiate conversation with me rather than having me constantly follow up with them to drag out details. Last I heard, they were still looking for someone to fill the contract.
5) Anyone who wants to make you do some kind of "homework" (generally writing a bunch of code) before you even get to a phone interview. Something that takes half an hour is okay. The ones I've seen always take multiple hours. No. Just, no.
6) This one is more of a general gripe but idiot startups think they can get senior talent for cheap salaries and nonexistent equity. This has been the case at every funding round (seed, series A, series B). It's practically a joke at this point and in the past month has been discussed on HN ad nauseam.
1) The sheer latency. This is by far the biggest annoyance. From first contact, to phone interviews, to onsite, to decision...generally a month or more passes. It's awful.
2) No up-front salary expectations. Have had so many job interviews that went well and suddenly turned around when they were like "soooo...salary?" and they were looking to get a senior engineer on the cheap. What a waste of everyone's time. Compounded by the above bit about latency.
3) Literally any company that uses that horrible ICIMS system I will not even bother applying anymore. I saw a number of job adverts looking for remote engineers from Red Hat, Rackspace, Amazon (AWS division), and a few more. The only way from the advert to actually apply was through that ICIMS system. This universally (not exaggerating) meant that I would submit my resume and it would sit in limbo for 2+ months (Red Hat was the fastest, with a turnaround time of 2 months). At this point, if a company wants me to apply through this system, I just won't even bother with them. They'll need to contact me first through a hiring manager, internal recruiter, or something similar so I can be guaranteed the process will actually be started at all.
4) This one's a little more specific but consulting agencies that want to put you on some of their contracts and never bother talking to you can go suck eggs. A specific one had an "urgent need" (exact words) for a certain type of engineer. I talked to the owner for a bit...I followed up for over two months with me instigating the conversation every time. At the end of the two months I figured I would stop bothering and if they really needed an engineer like me so urgently, they could initiate conversation with me rather than having me constantly follow up with them to drag out details. Last I heard, they were still looking for someone to fill the contract.
5) Anyone who wants to make you do some kind of "homework" (generally writing a bunch of code) before you even get to a phone interview. Something that takes half an hour is okay. The ones I've seen always take multiple hours. No. Just, no.
6) This one is more of a general gripe but idiot startups think they can get senior talent for cheap salaries and nonexistent equity. This has been the case at every funding round (seed, series A, series B). It's practically a joke at this point and in the past month has been discussed on HN ad nauseam.
Thanks. This is helpful. Given choice, would you apply directly or through an internal referral?
Internal referral but only because it at least guarantees that my resume will actually be looked at and I'll get a response (see the ICIMS bullshit for the other side of that coin).
As a hiring manager, working with other hiring managers, mainly on the interview side:
Job description: Write it out. Hopes and expectations. Be honest when certain experience doesn't really matter. Copy and paste general descriptions of the team's responsibilities are not enough. Be specific where specific skills are needed, and be general but guiding where job development paths are possible.
Speed: You're playing with people's lives. They depend on you for a job. Get your responses out quickly, and don't insist on interview upon interview. If you're not prepared enough in the initial interview to offer the candidate the position after interviewing all other candidates (within a week), make sure the second interview is for a well thought out alternate position. An organization that has 3rd or 4th placed interviews has no respect for a candidate, IMHO, or is poorly planned, or basically doesn't know what it is doing.
Don't make it a competition with 2 to X people in the same room, especially as some of who are in the room may know each other, or know of each other. You simply don't know the relationships of the people seemingly competing 'independently'. If you need to test team work with elementary school style tasks like how to a bridge out of 4 rolls of newspaper, and I don't think you do, do it with the existing team and the candidate, and analyze the team as much as the candidate.
Job description: Write it out. Hopes and expectations. Be honest when certain experience doesn't really matter. Copy and paste general descriptions of the team's responsibilities are not enough. Be specific where specific skills are needed, and be general but guiding where job development paths are possible.
Speed: You're playing with people's lives. They depend on you for a job. Get your responses out quickly, and don't insist on interview upon interview. If you're not prepared enough in the initial interview to offer the candidate the position after interviewing all other candidates (within a week), make sure the second interview is for a well thought out alternate position. An organization that has 3rd or 4th placed interviews has no respect for a candidate, IMHO, or is poorly planned, or basically doesn't know what it is doing.
Don't make it a competition with 2 to X people in the same room, especially as some of who are in the room may know each other, or know of each other. You simply don't know the relationships of the people seemingly competing 'independently'. If you need to test team work with elementary school style tasks like how to a bridge out of 4 rolls of newspaper, and I don't think you do, do it with the existing team and the candidate, and analyze the team as much as the candidate.
Just one thing? The whole process of the job search is tedious, painful and just downright frustrating, and employers make it harder and harder because reasons. Not to mention the whole dog and pony show that the candidate has to go through just to even get a chance to maybe plead their case with someone with hire/fire power.
Having been on both sides of the table, I don't like participating in either process. It's broken all around, and the only solution is to burn it down for the insurance money.
Having been on both sides of the table, I don't like participating in either process. It's broken all around, and the only solution is to burn it down for the insurance money.
I can't remember the last time I had a poor interview experience. I get to talk with nice people, maybe learn something, etc. Afterwards, I tell my friends that they should try to work there.
The pre-interview part of the job search for companies that don't use outside recruiters leaves something to be desired.
Advice for companies trying to hire:
1) Remember that you will probably be hiring again - don't piss off your future applicant pool because you don't need them for your current position. Treat them how you would like to be treated i.e. communicate with them even if it is automated.
2) Post a salary range - If you want to know what range applicants are looking for "so we don't waste your time". Post a range, problem solved. Oh, posting a range will upset your current employees? Maybe you should pay your current developers at the market rate.
3) Do the work. I realize that making candidates jump through arbitrary hoops is an easy way to limit the number of resume's your hiring team has to look at but don't be surprised if the best candidates go to companies that actually put in the work (read the cover letters, look at the portfolios, talk to the candidates, etc).
I would love to know how long a position has been open. I've seen job ads running for months, possibly years. Obviously this wouldn't be in the interest of the hiring companies. For a job searcher it would be a way to weed out the companies that aren't going to hire anyone.
The pre-interview part of the job search for companies that don't use outside recruiters leaves something to be desired.
Advice for companies trying to hire:
1) Remember that you will probably be hiring again - don't piss off your future applicant pool because you don't need them for your current position. Treat them how you would like to be treated i.e. communicate with them even if it is automated.
2) Post a salary range - If you want to know what range applicants are looking for "so we don't waste your time". Post a range, problem solved. Oh, posting a range will upset your current employees? Maybe you should pay your current developers at the market rate.
3) Do the work. I realize that making candidates jump through arbitrary hoops is an easy way to limit the number of resume's your hiring team has to look at but don't be surprised if the best candidates go to companies that actually put in the work (read the cover letters, look at the portfolios, talk to the candidates, etc).
I would love to know how long a position has been open. I've seen job ads running for months, possibly years. Obviously this wouldn't be in the interest of the hiring companies. For a job searcher it would be a way to weed out the companies that aren't going to hire anyone.
1. Being asked to code things on a white board or shared online doc that the interviewer knows are hard just so they can watch you sweat. It's just testing how well you perform under pressure, not if you know how to program well or not. Candidates should have the option to code without someone breathing down their neck if they prefer.
2. Not being up front about how many hours people actually work. In my experience, everyone lies about this. Companies claim they work 40 hour weeks but really work 60+ with time expected at home and on the weekends. And their "unlimited vacation" time really means "no vacation time". You shouldn't have to wait to start the job before finding out the answer to this question. That kind of bait and switch leads to resentment.
2. Not being up front about how many hours people actually work. In my experience, everyone lies about this. Companies claim they work 40 hour weeks but really work 60+ with time expected at home and on the weekends. And their "unlimited vacation" time really means "no vacation time". You shouldn't have to wait to start the job before finding out the answer to this question. That kind of bait and switch leads to resentment.
What I dislike: Going through the typical interview processes where the outcome seldom correlates with the job performance that the interview process is there to predict. Far from predicting job performance from an interview, in most cases they cannot correctly estimate job performance even from the employee actually performing the job. While failing to understand true job performance of their own employees, they still trust them with conducting interviews which is a different skill altogether.
Asking candidates to take a 1-10 hour test or assignment before you even talk with the hiring manager.
I already have a job and don't have the time to waste.
I already have a job and don't have the time to waste.
To be honest, the thing I hate the most about recruiters, is they don't read my resume from beginning to end.
Next in line to that are hiring managers who don't believe I have any experience in a skill that I have a great deal of experience with, such as a Nike manager who thought I didn't know how to write Mac OS X applications, despite my having been an Apple developer since 1986.
Next in line to that are hiring managers who don't believe I have any experience in a skill that I have a great deal of experience with, such as a Nike manager who thought I didn't know how to write Mac OS X applications, despite my having been an Apple developer since 1986.
I wish more companies would be transparent about salary ranges in job postings (e.g. more like CyberCoders - http://www.cybercoders.com/search/?searchterms=php&searchloc...). It is a waste of time going through the process of applying and interviewing only to find out we are in different zip codes on compensation. There are a few job search sites that have thankfully addressed this issue, and working with a recruiter also helps.
This ^^^, Even when looking on our own internal job posting board where I work, you can never find out how much a job pays, or even a range until you've been offered a position. Wastes tons of peoples times.
Having just gone through this, I agree completely. Even if they post a range, employers still play hardball with salary. The only way I had any leverage at all in the last negotiation is because I knew what the range was in advance, otherwise I would have seriously undervalued my skills.
This makes a ton of sense. Role and salary should be discussed up front, so necessary conditions are established.
Follow up - what stops you, as a candidate, from discussing this upfront?
Follow up - what stops you, as a candidate, from discussing this upfront?
Follow up - what stops you, as a candidate, from discussing this upfront?
It makes you look greedy. I am greedy, but it's bad form to appear that way. In the same way you want sex on the first date, but you can't make that known before the waiter has even taken your drink orders. That's why I like working with recruiters (not the sex part)...the recruiter can get the ballpark for me (or already knows it if the company is a client) and we can decide whether to even pursue it.
It makes you look greedy. I am greedy, but it's bad form to appear that way. In the same way you want sex on the first date, but you can't make that known before the waiter has even taken your drink orders. That's why I like working with recruiters (not the sex part)...the recruiter can get the ballpark for me (or already knows it if the company is a client) and we can decide whether to even pursue it.
The process for applying is laborious and sort of demoralizing. I mean, think of it like a blind date in a lot of ways without the payoff of a really great conversations that might lead to friendship. The best interviews often feel fine, but the process requires you to expend a lot emotionally and you don't really get that back most of the time even if you're offered the gig.
The salary comments are accurate, too. I don't expect a hard number, but want to know where the range is though I tend to do my own homework and look that stuff up because in my field it's usually findable.
I think the biggest deterrent is the application process. If I have to fill out the official application AND send a cover letter/resume, it's a lot less appealing and often times, I'm not going to do it. I totally get making it more onerous to limit the number of applications, but...I think you can just have shorter windows for hiring then rather than wasting a lot of time.
Lastly, being transparent about timeframes. Politics being what it is, I know you can't always nail down dates, but giving people a sense of what they're working with in terms of a week or three weeks to wait to hear something is really helpful, especially if they're truly considering the opportunity with you and not just using it as a hedge against the thing they really want.
The salary comments are accurate, too. I don't expect a hard number, but want to know where the range is though I tend to do my own homework and look that stuff up because in my field it's usually findable.
I think the biggest deterrent is the application process. If I have to fill out the official application AND send a cover letter/resume, it's a lot less appealing and often times, I'm not going to do it. I totally get making it more onerous to limit the number of applications, but...I think you can just have shorter windows for hiring then rather than wasting a lot of time.
Lastly, being transparent about timeframes. Politics being what it is, I know you can't always nail down dates, but giving people a sense of what they're working with in terms of a week or three weeks to wait to hear something is really helpful, especially if they're truly considering the opportunity with you and not just using it as a hedge against the thing they really want.
I'm morally opposed to requiring or preferring custom cover letters tailored to the job being applied to.
I think people who demand this really are disconnected from the realities of a job seeker. It's simply a ridiculous burden in an age where you must apply for hundreds of jobs and almost all of them don't even make a single response to your application.
If I'm ever hiring, I will not require a cover letter. I also believe that candidates should be compensated for their time interviewing. As a graduate I once had a very small employer literally interview what seemed like 50% of my class for one single position. He spent over an hour talking to each of us, mostly just conversing and looking for ego stroking. This is abusive in my mind.
I think people who demand this really are disconnected from the realities of a job seeker. It's simply a ridiculous burden in an age where you must apply for hundreds of jobs and almost all of them don't even make a single response to your application.
If I'm ever hiring, I will not require a cover letter. I also believe that candidates should be compensated for their time interviewing. As a graduate I once had a very small employer literally interview what seemed like 50% of my class for one single position. He spent over an hour talking to each of us, mostly just conversing and looking for ego stroking. This is abusive in my mind.
After sending out lots of resumes over the years, I noticed almost zero correlation with making a careful cover letter, and whether they follow up with an interview.
There's not much an applicant can do about your last point, time frames. So just keep interviewing, don't get emotionally tied to anywhere you've interviewed, and take whatever job is offered, by whoever, that satisfies your requirements and feelings. If this ever becomes a problem for employers they'll eventually learn to act faster.
As someone currently on the job hunt I find it very frustrating to not even receive acknowledgement of your application.
Failing that a polite, "Sod off" would be much appreciated when your not successful as well!
Failing that a polite, "Sod off" would be much appreciated when your not successful as well!
Posting anon?
Treat them like they treat you.
You're just a bottleneck in the hiring managers process, so make companies a bottleneck in your job process.
There may be some "holy-grail" of working at FaceGooOrStartup where you can do "work you love", but after a while you realize that all work is balls and you'd much rather not work at all (or run your own shin-dig).
Apply the technique of a "smart" spray and spread your CV gently across a wide-enough net.
Treat them like they treat you.
You're just a bottleneck in the hiring managers process, so make companies a bottleneck in your job process.
There may be some "holy-grail" of working at FaceGooOrStartup where you can do "work you love", but after a while you realize that all work is balls and you'd much rather not work at all (or run your own shin-dig).
Apply the technique of a "smart" spray and spread your CV gently across a wide-enough net.
YC companies have been particularly bad at this in my experience. At least 5 times I have replied to job postings on HN, sending my resume and completing puzzles correctly, and not once have I even gotten an acknowledgement. I would love a "sod off" email from a YC company after applying. At the very least, an autoresponder.
[deleted]
+ What do you like and dislike about finding a new job? + What do you value when looking for a new job? + If you could change one thing about "job search", what would you change?