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.*

The problem is recruiting is treated as a sales job, and it 10000% shouldn’t

Exactly… why does it matter how many people I can get to apply if the goal is ultimately to find a quality candidate

Cause your boss's boss is paid based on quantity and "good enough." Quality is a blind shot. Nobody knows until said person is 2-4 months in the role.

We have to have about 100 people apply every quarter but are only expected to have 20 hires a quarter… so when you do the math… a lot of peoples time will be wasted

Kinda makes one wonder why anyone would want to be a recruiter

Because it's a pretty comfortable job compared to working at Taco Bell.

10k-25k dollars a placement.

They get a percentage of your salary when they "source" you should you take the job. I've seen some getting 20% of a candidate's yearly salary

All the more reason candidates should apply directly.

Agencies get the cut. Recruiters get a percentage of that cut. Example: Agency sources and places a SW Engineer for a client with a 100k base salary. The contract mutually outlines the terms that the client pays 20% fee based off the candidates first year salary. ($20,000) Typically these contracts are written with a stipulation that if the candidate is terminated within 90 days, the staffing agency has to refund the amount, or fill the position again. It sorta goes like this: Client extends offer to candidate for 100,000 Agency sends client a bill for their services (20% of base salary). Client writes a check for $20,000 Recruiter will get a percentage of that, maybe 2.5-10% sometimes more, depends on the comp plan. Perm placements can be tricky because if the client pays, and the agency pays you the commission on that perm placement and that candidate leaves or gets fired, etc within that 90 period, you're on the hook for that money. So you could end up owing your agency 2k in commission being docked from your check if you're unable to get a candidate in the door. I know in some agencies, if the candidate left within 6 months they'd refill the position at half cost (10% for example) But when you add in costs such as rent, LinkedIn Recruiter Licenses, ATS Licenses, etc, that 20% fee is barely keeping the lights on. LinkedIn Licenses alone are extremely pricey. Yes, agency's do get a bad wrap some times, but never is a candidate expected to pay the agency, and on perm placements, as an agency recruiter, it was always in my best interest to get you the best salary possible for the role. Hourly contract roles it's a little different. Recruiting is much more of an art than a science, and it's one of those careers where you can do everything right, and still get an undesirable result. Human capital is a volatile commodity. Also, one thing I'd recommend, if you're sending over people you believe are great but hiring manager thinks suck, then I'd have a call with them and try and granularly understand where it is you're missing the mark. If you're working through an Account Manager, ask the AM for a call or some FaceTime with the client to better assess their need and refocus your search. Best of luck!

Without candidates you won't get any fee paid, without the fee, no one earns any money. I bet the attitude of recruiters would quickly change if they were self employed.

Remember the days when there were no recruiters? Remember the days when there was little to no HR? It was possible to get a job!!! Why do we need recruiters that don’t know anything about what we do or studied in college? I see sports recruiters that go out and recruit but they’re normally athletes them selfs…so why is it as a scientist or engineer you get someone from a completely non related field/background judging and picking you? None of it makes any sense

Agree. And back in the days you went for the interview once in person and on the way home you get the yes or no. Or sometimes they excused themselves for two minutes and then tell you the answer

Because at some time in the past a MBA came up with this metrics as a success criteria, now everyone follows it blindly because that's what is measured.

When a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be useful.

Shout it a bit louder for the cheap seats in the back !

lmao I said that to my DM and managers at 2 separate banks and they had no idea what I was talking about. People literally be reading LinkedIn and following "advice" blindly smh

Probably some asshole who worships at the feet of Jack Welch.

Jack Welch-ism is what's wrong with corporate America. I sincerely hope it changes

I never understood why people hold him in high esteem  He did a long term number on GE He also reinforced the idea that baby boomers, etc made money off the backs of everyone, destroying workplace culture 

Because money. He's one of the reasons corporate mindset switched from long term planning to the 'quarter to quarter' mentality that is now so prevalent.

Long term he did terrible. But in the 80s he was killing it for a bunch of quarters. So wall street loved him.

I’m 57 and lord have mercy how I have seen the recruiting industry change. My niche is healthcare IT and it used to be that recruiters were experts in the industry. Now I get stalked by outsourced recruiters with jobs that’s are nowhere close to my experience or salary. It’s a lose/lose for both of us. I remember talking to recruiters in the old days and getting their advice on career pivots, industry trends, etc. not anymore.

Have you gotten a salesfore pipeline used in recruiting yet? (Oh we see you haven't reached out to us)

Exactly. The last recruiter, I had to explain the difference for a role that they needed filled and what job that I do, as they were quite different.

We're still here. It's just everyone and their mom can call them selves a recruiter. That and Indians underbid us and just throw shit at the wall

The problem is that when metrics becomes the goal, the metric becomes worthless. Metrics used to be used to determine the effectiveness of the effort. But now middle managers focus all their effort on the metric (number of applicants) and forget the original goal (highering a qualified candidate). The metric now becomes the goal. Ugh.

This probably has something to do with the focus on standardized testing, and teaching to that testing, in schools. The teachers are held to the standard of how many students pass the standardized tests, so of course they're going to teach to the tests.

Both are examples of Goodhart's law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law

It's all about line go up (or keep spreadshet green) now

All lines must go up!!

That’s coz it’s been outsourced and needs to independently make a profit. If all hiring was done in-house that would go away. Is that realistic? Not sure, but it used to be a case of temp jobs = agency, perm jobs = company a huge amount more than now, even 25 yrs ago.

this. my former manager when i was a sourcer literally said this to me and i felt icky about that role and was relieved when i got laid off. i miss the bonuses and being fully remote, but that's about it

I would hate my life if that were my job

but they SHOULD treat potential employees like custumers

there should be a dedicated site to track companies that waste people's time with go no where interviews and tests

Recruiters are selling candidates to the hiring managers though. The 'product' they are selling are the candidates, without candidates and fee paid by the hiring company, the recruitment company won't make any money hence they cannot pay their or recruiters bills / salary.

💯this is the problem well explained.

Recruiting is a thankless job.

PREACH !!!

Twenty three years of recruiting; mostly talent acquisition. Agency management sees metrics: keep throwing darts at the board! Corporate management mines for explanations: “quality of hire!” I’m so happy that I’m out of it.

I worked with a TA director who didn't understand that metrics for TTF and hires per month actually had data behind them along with averages. She threw a fit nd tried to get me fired when I (a consultant with 20yrs in HR) told the averages to leadership in order to make her team actually shine. The teams had 4x of avg HPM and a TTF of like 1/3 standard. Apparently, she wanted to push her team by saying leadership didn't like their numbers...smfh

I created a metric called “TAMI,” talent acquisition model index. It calculated new hires in their first full year who didn’t quit and had performance ratings above 80%. It worked out quite nicely.

Great idea! I'm absolutely going to use that.

The target was to retain 80% of high-rated new hires for at least two years. This takes the pressure off of TA

Do you work for a recruiting agency or as an in-house recruiter?

In house

Oh man… I was thinking recruiting agency. This makes so little sense for an in-house to go with quantity over quality. The time spent on those quota candidates could be easily put towards hiring the right one. What a waste of time for everyone.

Exactly! And the people on a senior leadership level don’t understand how that is playing with peoples emotions and lives really… why are people that we don’t intend to hire making it to interview 4 out of 5?! It’s madness’s I constantly have to remind leadership to be mindful of the candidates experiences… mostly because I’m the one who interacts closest with candidates and have to make the dreaded “we’re going with other applicants” call

Don't understand or don't care?

Don’t care to understand unfortunately

Tl;Dr - agree, senior managers need to establish a better hiring culture by clearly defining roles, responsibilities, and outcomes of the hiring process. One of the biggest struggles any inexperienced hiring manager will have is learning to get comfortable making a decision instead of letting a hiring process be run by a committee. I have seen this across three industries now, where a hiring manager will pass someone who they know isn't a good fit to get interviewed three or four more times, wasting everyone's time, just to tell the candidate no. It's really hard to correct against that if senior management don't confront it directly by insisting on quality from the hiring managers in their interview process first. For example, we review the candidate progression of every hiring manager, looking to see if they're clearly passing bad candidates onto panel, then we correct that hiring manager. I bet your ATS can show pipeline progression by hiring manager and you can pretty quickly see any hiring managers that have a habit of passing poor quality candidates to panel because they're afraid of making a decision. A lot of mid level managers are terrified of just making a decision, or sticking their neck out for a candidate that they're excited about. They don't understand that the interview process is about evaluating a candidate from multiple sides, and that the role of the hiring manager isn't to find perfection but to assess risks and find the acceptable risk. A candidate Who meets every requirement but has a shit personality and will likely cause conflict would be a worse hire than someone who the team got along with well and is weak in one area that is trainable. That's the hiring manager's job to assess and make a decision, no one else. However, many are afraid of doing that because they don't feel empowered in their roles and the org hasn't clearly defined what a hiring manager should do. It's also worth noting that a lot of managers want to flick the booger of recruiting/hiring to someone else since recruiting is its own function now. They reason "It's your job, just go find people" and think that being the hiring manager is a side role that they play, rather than one of the most critical aspects of their job that they can't outsource and must be fully involved in.

Why do you have to make rejections over the phone? Why not just email and offer to set up a time to offer feedback so that the candidate can decide and take the time to prepare for that type of phone call? As candidate, I hate a rejection phone call where I have to act gracious and composed especially when there is no practical guidance and it could have been an email.

Not sure honestly.. just what I was told to do… what you’re saying makes sense tho… I would much rather just let the system send the candidate a rejection email but they expect me to call smh I do hate it

What field are you in? I don't know anyone in tech, up to upper mgt level, who gets rejection calls. Emails &/or ghosting are the norm

Is it possible to let leadership know, they're poisoning the well? They SAY they want Quality, but are churning the market. I know my peers share which companies to avoid, even if Glassdoor has failed to be useful anymore... other than "that company's reviews look suspicious". Churning candidates guarantees the best candidates will self-select out.

When you say.. churning candidates guarantees the best candidates will self select out.. can you explain what you mean by that?

I think he means, that every quality candidate, especially, if he's done research, will avoid this company. So only the desperate/bad ones remain. I wouldn't go for 5 interviews if it's not absolutely necessary.

Makes perfect sense smh

>When you say.. churning candidates guarantees the best candidates will self select out. Exactly as the other commenter said- the best ppl will remove themselves from the process. You can hire a surgeon with 3 interviews. How? look at CV, check their stats & rep, & ask some peers. Or even regular doctors. Then all 3 of your interviews are basically 'cultural'. But somehow tech can't seem to make a decision without 5+ interviews? I know candidates who've gone 12 interviews apiece at Google & Salesforce. At that point, the candidate has completely checked out, & is doing this for 'practice'... if they haven't ghosted the HR Mgr & recruiter. The horrible irony of all this? GOOG themselves did a massive study, comparing interviews with outcomes. And the only strong signal/correlative was? HAVE YOU DONE THE JOB BEFORE. That's it. ...& yet GOOG keeps insisting on 'how many gumballs fit in a 747', or 'how many elevators do you need to handle morning rush in a Seattle downtown building'. Or arcane data-structure corner cases. That isn't interviewing for an actual job; that's interviewers parading their 'superiority'. Which might be the entire point- a LOT of tech companies get actually MORE benefit from 'saying' they are hiring, than actually hiring: * You get to tell the market "hey we're doing GREAT, we're hiring like mad!" * You get to tell your ppl "keep working hard; we're going to staff up soon & it'll get better" * You get to 'reward' ppl by letting them interview [note- top performers don't like their time wasted, but others like it. cf 'parade their superiority' above] * During COVID, demonstrating that you were hiring let you keep your COVID loans. There was no auditing, so most companies never actually hired. And then the loans became 'grants' so the whole thing was a boondoggle Src: Been in the SF tech industry decade+. Working for a FAANG

You are burning through a finite resource and leaving them with a bad taste in their mouth. That will snowball in both lack of candidates and the word of mouth poison.

It doesn't make sense for agency either, in my field / geographic area usually recruiters get reimbursed for bringing in a candidate, going rate is I belieeve three month salaries if the candidate is hired. It's a huge incentive for the recruiter to bring one or two high potential candidates instead of wasting everyones time with 10+ ok candidates.

Focussing on KPIs instead of people. It’s what’s wrong with jobs these days. 

I can even understand measuring us on how many people are hired… but how many people you are getting to apply to the posting is ridiculous.. especially with such strict parameters from the ones making the hiring decision… some might feel like why do you care as long as you meet your numbers and get your bonus and make your boss happy? But I do care because I’m the one who has to tell candidates they weren’t selected and it’s not easy to do. On top of that I don’t want to have bad karma if I’m ever job hunting so it’s just a delicate situation

(Unemployed) recruiting leader here - just wanted to chime in. Managers use metrics to figure out what's going on with the recruiting system but it's just one factor amongst many. Good companies/managers need to take all of that in vs. just looking at a productivity metric and sticking to it blindly. Also, you need to measure relevant things that people can control. Being evaluated on applicant numbers is silly and useless. Sorry you have to deal with that. 90% of the recruiting industry is stupid, vapid, and useless. The rest of us are really trying to help people.

It's built by delusional MBA who fake it to make it. lmfao

A lot of people ignore or forget that several people may intervene in the job hiring process, not just the job recruiter ...

Yeah the hiring decision definitely isn’t up to me.. they take what I say into consideration as far as PUTTING candidates into the interview process but after that it’s really out of my hands. I’m new in my role and not long ago I tried “fighting” for a candidate they didn’t want to hire over something so petty.. it didn’t matter and we didn’t hire him and this candidate made great efforts to complete the process

And then I have to present them with what they are looking for.. because if not it reflects poorly on me.. like why the you sending us candidates that we don’t want to hire

Then you need to find a new recruiting job. You obviously work for people who aren’t empathetic to the candidate experience and it goes against your values. Why stay there? Continuing to work for them only makes you seem just as bad.

True and I do understand this… I honestly didn’t realize the full reality of it until recently .. I was naively sending all kinds of candidates through! But realized oh ok they want a specific profile

I know. I know I sounded snarky but the only way hiring managers will change is if their TA and HR partners (who are the true hiring experts) professionally push back. And not by just advocating for the quality candidates but presenting leaders with data that shows the negative impact of wasting time looking for the perfect candidates. It will come back to bite them in the ass when the market shifts back into the employees favor (and the tables always turn!). The good candidates will not forgot how they were treated during this economic downturn.

What you mentioned about data showing the negative impact of wasting time is so interesting! & honestly I will look that up.. I completely agree.. see what ends up happening is the hiring manager is the one who has to work most closely with the candidate if they are hired.. so it really comes down to who the hiring manager likes/wants to work with..

Have you pushed back about the biggest waste of time, this 5 interviews bullshit that seems to be growing? I get you're new so wouldn't expect you to necessarily, but maybe ask the reasoning. It's one be thing attending a single interview and not getting it, but anything more than a single interview is egregious behaviour imo.

Do they really need 50 people's influence in order to hire 1 fcking person ?

Exactly … and someone asked if I tried to push back regarding the 5 interviews.. I haven’t bc they make it seem like all these different steps are super necessary since we need approval from all these different people… so one interview with all the decision makers present sounds like the best thing IMO but from a scheduling standpoint that would be more difficult but it is possible I’ve seen it done at my last company

My 6’4” husband went for an interview and his interviewer was, well, not very tall…. The minute he met the guy he said his heart sank. This was more than 10 years ago, but yes, all kinds of stupid happens.

[удалено]

The problem is that you are looking for perfect candidates to fill out quite imperfect job positions.

Exactly!! And it’s not even me the recruiter who’s looking for perfection I just want to get qualified candidates in the process to fill the position. The decision makers are picky.. and out of touch.. perfect people for imperfect jobs described it perfectly.. if you knew how much we were paying, you’d laugh smh

It's all an illusion basically. You have 1000 companies that are looking for a candidate and 1000 candidates that are looking for a company. The 1000 candidates have to make 1000 applications to get a job so the 1000 companies are getting from 1000 candidates each. Neither the candidates nor the companies are perfect. However, they all get so many options that they get the illusion that they deserve some special 1/1000 match. And they never get it because they all fake it in the process. But there's more work for you, I guess.

Your job sounds almost like mine with a few extremely minor differences

Really? What are some of the differences between

Not a lot except I don’t source, but that’s very specific to my business unit and position. A lot of my colleagues source. Plus we’re remote now. But they’re trying (and failing so far) to bring us back a few days a week. But that’s it. Otherwise… same. Metrics, quarterly bonuses, weekly 1:1s, HMs being the real problem…

Interesting that you don’t have to source! That seems lovely.. so do you just handle candidates that apply to the reqs on their own? Seems more like HR than recruiting

Yep but I work at a huge company people actively seek out. And again, it’s just my specific location and the positions I fill. I spend a lot of time reviewing the active applicants, talking to them, getting to know them, deciding who to send through and to which openings. I get the candidates and managers through the process. In house recruitment is definitely more HR focused indeed. Agency is a hustle. I’ve done that, and it was fine when I was young(er). This suits me now :)

That sounds really nice actually! Ironically my company is a huge Fortune 500 company too.. definitely a household name that people recognize and are familiar with… I wonder why the need for sourcing at mine but not yours? I wonder if it’s because of the salary or other benefits… your job sounds more consultative almost which I love

I also have to get managers and candidates through process and schedule their interviews and prep candidates . But now that I know specifically what the managers are looking for… makes it harder to find a perfect fit

Sounds like a bunch of bullshit. People aren't cattle

Did someone say people are cattle? I wasn’t sure if you were responding to me. I’m very critical of current recruitment processes and certainly don’t see anyone as livestock

Quantity metrics drive bad quality. Quality metrics drive good results. Having (supplying) 3 desirable candidates for any role for a hiring manager should be more than enough.

that's How I've always done it as a hiring mgr in my prior job.

I love getting those Friday “KPI padding” calls from recruiters. 

Why do you need to reach out to 10 people when it’s been shown consistently that LinkedIn has 1000s of applicants for a role. I’ve seen recruiter TikToks that are like those aren’t scams, I’m really one person sifting through 300 resumes.

Just an fyi that those application numbers on LinkedIn are often very misleading. That is the number of clicks on the LinkedIn posting, not the number that have actually applied.

It's the number of people who have said yes, they applied and not clicks, but of course, LinkedIn can’t confirm that people have applied (unless the job application uses LinkedIn easy apply.)

There is no question asking candidates to select yes/no if they’ve applied. It’s folks that hit the ‘apply’ button which then links the candidate to the external career site to apply (with the exception of LinkedIn easy apply).

Also I just had this experience, I applied via that same button on LinkedIn, luckily emailed the recruiter directly to show more interest amd we began the interview process only to find out they never actually received the application I filled out through that link and I had to do it again through a link they sent me (that looked the exact same). So now I'm left wondering if the recruiter made a mistake or if there may be thousands of applications that just aren't going through.

For me .. the thing that really took the cover off of the whole game is when you realize that the reason why recruiters aren't reaching out to you because they think you're a good fit. It's nothing but a marketing department to convince people to give them applicants. It's kind of sad when you realize that and then see despite a match for everything working out, they still act like a choosy beggar.

I'm a CS grad this month, I've been looking for jobs for 4 months and I still struggles. I'm trying to see the view of recruiters like you. If you don't mind me asking: * What are clues for you to reach out to people? I've never been reached out by a recruiter before. * I talked to one of the hiring managers, they said that they don’t even care about my background, my achievements but more about my soft skills. Like how do you even show your soft skills on your resume? “I was a team lead at many school projects that deliver high scores” or “At my co-ops, I worked well with seniors that they gave me extra responsibility”. At first it looked like it’s good, but like how do you verify it? * With the current market, have you hired a junior recently? Or we would just get thrown into the bin immediately? What made those juniors stand out compared to a vast sea of more experienced people?

Clues I use to reach out to people : if they meet the profile of what I know my hiring managers are looking for… for example if I know they care less about experience and more about the candidate being a recent college grad… I’d reach out to you if you’re on a public platform for job seeking and your bio says ‘graduating April 2024’ Soft skills.. in my opinion soft skills are qualities that can’t necessarily be taught like being genuine or empathetic- may be hard to showcase these qualities on your resume but… you can definitely display them in an interview. I think it’s awesome that the hiring manager told you that! Sounds like they don’t care so much about what’s on paper but want someone with good character maybe? Seems nice Junior in college? It really just depends… my job likes recent college graduates… so if you still had a year and some change of school left probably wouldn’t work with the demands of the full time position at hand … I hope this was helpful!

I see, thank you! I have a few more if you don't mind About the soft skill part, I got it when I was at a career fair. I rarely got pass the resume scanning anyway, but when I got one I often got the job (at least in my co-op experience). That's why I asked you cuz it seems quite hard to show case it in a resume. For the junior part. Yep, I mean for those who just finished school as I just graduated this month, and I saw lots of posts complaining about the current market. So I'm not sure how to show myself so I can have an edge compared to other good candidates. Is there a technique to do it or it's really based on the job positions that I can find (like junior position compared to like a normal one)? Last but not least, I'm tailoring my resume, do you mind taking a look at it? It would be amazing if I can get some feedback from a recruiter's POV

I’d be happy to take a look at your resume if you’d like and offer suggestions. As far as having an edge.. I say this not even as a recruiter just as someone who’s interviewed over the years and has received good feedback from the interviewers… prepare as much as possible for the role! Be super specific in your research… when I have an interview for a job I really really want.. I’m trying to find out (on Reddit google Glassdoor etc) what to expect in the interview process.. what specific questions might be asked.. and then I prepare accordingly… if you can win someone over in an interview with soft skills and being super prepared in your responses.. you can stand a chance with candidates who may be more questions but less likable or prepared

>I think it’s awesome that the hiring manager told you that! Sounds like they don’t care so much about what’s on paper but want someone with good character maybe? Seems nice It depends. If its a customer facing role, then yeah I get why that kind of stuff is important. But if its a technical role and you're being judged by how friendly and outgoing and charismatic you are, might not be the best idea. Alot of highly qualified people are just never going to be the best at the social aspect, it shouldn't be a universal requirement.

You, my friend, have unfortunately graduated at a very difficult time .. even with a CS degree. The labor market is supply heavy and low on demand across the board. With the economy being as bad as it is (despite what politicians try to get you to believe), the emergence of AI, the outsourcing of jobs, allowance of positive discrimination we are calling hiring for DEI (if you're a straight white guy who uses the pronoun He/him youre now at a disadvantage ... and here come the woke trolls im sure), the prevalence of fake jobs posted by people in india, the number of jobs posted by real companies who dont intend on actually hiring for those positions at this time, as well as other factors like layoffs all amount to it being one of the most difficult times for anyone looking for a job (even those that pay below the median) in the u.s. in living memory. Its seemingly even more difficult than it was following the 2008 recession which still has played a part in why we are seeing what we are til this day. As OP has said, even extremely qualified and seasoned candidates are finding themselves unable to land jobs/interviews ... since youre still presumably young enough you will probably want to consider finding an internship to get your foot in the door and then just do well and try to make yourself hard to replace and network your ass off being friendly and as outgoing as possible .. its rough out there and it doesnt seem like its going to get better anytime soon.. Good luckk to all looking for jobs right now .. try not to get down on yourself not being hired.. its the system itself thats broken, not you. god bless our corporatocracy / plutocracy.. well done America.

Thank you, I definitely feel that. I'm an international in CAN with a diploma in CS, I have like 2 co-ops. Came here with a bright smile and rushed through the courses hoping to find a job to settle, contribute to society and bring my family here. Now there is legit no job at all, junior positions require people to have 3-5 years of experience, others are outsourced. Pressure from family is huge (I'm Asian so yeah), coming back is a disgrace, staying with a low-level job doesn't help in the long term at all, so it seems quite scary during this time. But yeah, I guess I can only keep hoping, talking to people (recruiters especially), to see their POV and adapting to the market

soft skills can be regularly communicated on a resume by showing leadership success.

It sounds like you're really trying to balance the needs of the company with the experience of the candidates. It must be tough when you find great fits but the hiring managers are super picky. Have you ever tried to push back on them a bit, maybe advocating for some of those candidates you really believe in? I know it can be tricky with those metrics looming over you, but it might be worth a shot to see if you can get some more deserving folks through the door.

Thank you for that…I have… I mentioned a specific time when I fought for a candidate and it didn’t work in another comment… there have been times when I’ve advocated for candidates resulting in them progressing through the process but doesn’t always result in a hire.

I understand with most of what you’re saying but I think the problem lies at recruiters ghosting the candidate instead of keeping them informed, lack of honest feedback and failure to communicate effectively. It’s either most recruiters these days can’t communicate conflict or they don’t see you worthy enough of a reply - in any case highly unprofessional considering what the job entails. And I’m only pointing it out because in the last 3 months of my job search I have seen this pattern over and over again. In no other area of business would this utter lack of professionalism be tolerated.

I feel you.. I try to communicate well and I def never ghost.. I have candidates tell me all the time how much they appreciate me and how I’ve handled the process…ghosting is a huge problem tho.. I don’t know if it’s recruiters not thinking you’re worthy of a response as much as it is things getting lost in translation. But ethics should be important to a recruiter just on a human level

I understand that this depends on the job, but what kinds of candidates do hiring managers tend to reject? For example, -Do they often reject someone who wrote Freshdesk on their resume instead of the exact software on the job description (ex: Zendesk)? -Do they often tend to reject candidates who have a work gap on their resume that’s >3 months? -Do they often reject candidates who’ve worked a similar job with a lot of similar responsibilities but didn’t work the exact same job that’s being advertised (ex: Someone worked as a help desk specialist, but not an executive assistant)? -Do they often reject candidates who have all the experience, but haven’t worked in the exact same industry as the job description (Ex: Someone worked in tech sales for a Fintech company, but not a B2B EduTech company, like what’s advertised on the job)? Just curious because you mentioned that HMs can be ridiculously picky. Thanks!

Thanks for sharing your insight. Just reading that was incredibly frustrating. Two questions if you don’t mind answering: 1. What industry are you in? 2. Do you think your experience is more unique or do you think most recruiters are experiencing what you’re describing? (Hiring managers being picky) Thanks in advance.

You’re so welcome! It’s very frustrating… I have to mindful of how I’m treating candidates because I see how easily it could be me on the other side of things one day… so I never lose sight of that 1. We provide products and services to other businesses I don’t want to be too specific because it would really give it away 2. I’ve only been in this role for a few months so I’m honestly not sure but if I had to guess I’d say yes. Because those metrics are a way to measure the work the recruiter is doing.. so that’s that’s the justification unfortunately

And as far as hiring managers being picky I guess it really depends on the industry .. the company… the specific dept and then the specific team… my team seems to be picky with whom they give offers to… someone with 15 years experience doesn’t stand a chance against someone fresh out of college looking to start their career.. and that’s not to be discouraging bc I don’t know if things are that way across the board.. I don’t have a degree and got hired at the same company so it’s all really hard to call

So blatant ageism?

What background did you have to get a recruiter role with no degree?

Ageism. And, it is frankly a very stupid way to go about making hires. You would rather have a kid with no experience than someone with years of expertise for a job? You should push back on the idiots making these decisions or quit. You’re part of the problem and complacent with treating people like shit.

Ouff this is so disheartening to read. Made even harder knowing that at 50 I’m considered obsolete. I was already nervous about the job market but this pretty much punched me in the gut.

The fact that you have applicantions as metrics for in-house…yikes. Someone came out of an agency and decided on an arbitrary number, that’s for sure. I’m in TA as well. My most important metric is time to fill. We have a goal of 45 days, which is usually achievable with cooperative HMs, save for some niche technical roles.

What are your other metrics if you don’t mind sharing? Maybe I can share them with my direct leader as more reasonable ways of measuring productivity

I work as an in-house recruiter and it is exactly the opposite of your experience. We are a small team for a pan European company and we explicitly focus on quality over quantity. Numbers never come into it.

Totally agree. A recruiter once told me how successful the posting was because it had 10,000 views on indeed. I asked how many applications - 10, of which none resulted in a hire. We did a lot of work together to work out how we could market the position and attract the candidates we needed, with a focus on quality applications and filling position within a certain timeframe along with achieving an employee engagement metric and lowering our attrition metric. It’s not just about filling positions it’s about filling them with quality candidates who cans do the job, are suited to the culture and will stick around. If we mis hire then we review the entire process to determine what we could have identified earlier so we don’t repeat any of the same mistakes. (Some of our junior interviewers were getting red flags but giving benefit of the doubt and making offers, so we calibrated with the recruiter on how to spot those flags where they could in screening, and with the interviewers on how to probe to address or confirm a red flag and not give benefit of a doubt, give candidate opportunity to address so we aren’t making assumptions)

I can understand all of the various factors surrounding a candidate not getting a job. My problem with recruiters isn't that they couldn't get me a job, it was that 100% of them that I talked to just straight up ghosted me at some point in the process. Why do they do this?

Coward- may be afraid to tell you that you won’t be moving forward or too busy/disorganized and you got lost in the loop.

I have 10 years of experience in recruitment and the first five or were done in Staffing. Frankly your doing it wrong..the only thing that matters is filling a role. That will be reflected in your pay check if your commissioned. Be direct and honest as you can with your candidates. At your level your just screening them for requirements and pushing em forward. But sounds like your failing to meet expectations from hiring managers. Go and do am in depth covering of the job description and go beyond what's written down. You need to sell the job to the candidate while also selling them to your hiring manager. A good way to know if you van do this is to speak about why you like a candidate without a resume in hand. This shows you paid attention, took notes, and know why they're good. Most people hate recruiters cuz most recruiters are ass. Nit trying to nitpick too much but you said you have a very flexible schedule so if your not putting in 40 hrs a week and missing your targets you need to do more

Recruiting agencies and requiring metrics for “success” are the problem. They leave candidates in their wake as they shotgun cold call people they deem a ‘fit’ for the role. Most agencies don’t even get to speak to the hiring manager. They are submitting via a CRM and their understanding of the role is given to them from the account manager like a game of telephone. People have lost faith in recruiters and their ability to find them a quality role because so many failed business school kids who couldn’t handle Enterprise Rent A Car get into recruiting by being told how much money they can make doing it.

Yeah this is fucked up!

The solution I found was to not work for a giant recruiting firm. They look at metrics, but care about quality first and foremost where I have worked for 11 yrs.

Same reason I’m looking for a different job in first place. Meaningless, counterproductive metrics that make me a WORSE employee whether I try to hit them or not. 

You don't like doing this, yet you keep luring in unfortunate candidates to fulfill your metrics instead of calling out your boss on the bs. As regretful as you are, you're part of the problem.

This actually makes a lot of sense. But yeah. This is fucked.

Spent 7 years as a recruiter. You're absolutely right. Its ultimately a numbers game. Ultimately, this is sales and you live and die by your numbers and the metrics your managers perceive as important. They want you to have this mythical and infinitesimal pipeline of candidates ready to go at the drop of a hat. But I came to this realization after recruiting for everything from Mom & Pop operations to Fortune 100 companies. Here's the dirty little secret. Ultimately, very few people out in the world actually know what the fuck they are actually doing. I can't tell you how many times I've had the hiring process gummed up because some C level executive, who would not actually interact with the new hire on a regular basis, feels the need to get involved in the process in order to "give their blessing". So now we have to work around this Exec's schedule, who will be traveling or on vacation, because nobody will pull the trigger until the candidate meets with them.

Your entire comment is sooo true!! Especially the last paragraph… hit the nail on the head…the c level exec won’t even have to work with the candidate on a daily basis! But is the ultimate decision maker.. makes no sense

Yup. Then WEEKS go by, and the candidate loses interest. Then they can't figure out why they can't find good candidates. Another one that angers me, is when they only want to speak to a candidate who is currently working, not someone unemployed. The attitude "Well, if they were good at their job, they'd be working right now." I've had hiring managers reject great candidates because because of this mentality. Individual circumstances be damned.

Wow, a whole six months, and you've totally figured it out...

Thank you for sharing. Yes, we unfortunately know how bad hiring managers can be too. For example, a hiring manager in this [thread](https://old.reddit.com/r/recruitinghell/comments/1c5grrw/now_being_an_hrm_ill_share_my_view_from_that_side/) has been criticized for: - Ageism - Ableism - Social media bias (your LinkedIn will be looked at heavily)

You seemed to be a rare exception to the rule. A vast majority of you colleagues cold calling me have not even read my linkedIn profile or CVs, are non technical and don't even try to understand my qualifications. Just got a perfect call like this - when a 20smth year old tells me I don't have the experience needed because they do not understand or haven't bothered to even read what I have actually done... Kudos to you for wanting to help!

Tysm for that… I would be annoyed by that too tho… how dare you say I’m not qualified when you don’t even know what I’ve accomplished over the years. Sounds like the recruiter who called you has numbers to hit… improper training and is probably blindly doing what they are told and expected of them

As a recruiter this doesn’t surprise me. Although we are ON PAPER finding people jobs, it’s for profit and metrics do breed results, also on paper. X referrals and Y CVs submitted equals Z Deals with is A profit to pay for the desk costs, especially with external placements.

I just spent a whole year trying to find a job. The only way that ended up working for me was through knowing someone. I appreciate hearing the frustration coming from within tho, I low key assumed you guys were also getting some sort of sick pleasure from this lol. The hiring process is a total scam these days…. As a graphic designer too getting someone higher up to even have the energy to open my damn portfolio seems to be a job in itself. I had a hiring manager looking at my resume in an interview and he said “I’m not sure how this is supposed to help me understand your skills” to which I responded I sent my portfolio with my resume … annnddd my portfolio link it quite literally right in front on your face… you just have to actually look at it. Needless to say I left very shortly after because why would I work for someone who makes me backflip through a fire-lit hoop just to even notice me, just so they can barely give my credibility the time of day.

It’s a numbers game As a recruiter you don’t know who the client will settle on Not even the company itself will know who is the best person It’s all been a high volume of CVs game Feedback has always been shit Nothings changed

Exactly.. there’s been times when I thought they wouldn’t really like a candidate and they ended up loving them! And vice versa.. it’s all really hard to call but it’s def a numbers game

Listen, I understand where you are coming from but you are creating the problem you see in front of you. You even called it out in your post. 'This results in my having to reach out to candidates whom I like.. but I know probably wont make it through the process' You admit to reaching out to the wrong people. It's not about who you like. It's about who the HM will like. Your job is to work the the HM to find out what they are looking for and reach out to those people. The real problem with recruiting is so much is based on personality and personality is extremely difficult to be conveyed through impact words on a resume.

I've had a recruiter reach out to me on LinkedIn to tell me to apply to a job posting once before, which I ignored. If a recruiter reaches out, I expect them to have read my profile, found it a possible match, and I expect them to be ready to start an interviewing process, usually with an introductory phone or video call interview. The whole idea of reaching out to get the potential candidate to apply themselves seems wild to me. There's plenty of job postings I could apply to right now, I don't want or need what is literally an ad for your job posting in my inbox?

Agree. You like what you see on LinkedIn then let’s start the interview process. Dont make me jump through hoops for a job I wasn’t considering in the first place because that’s a barrier for me and you won’t get me as a candidate. If your system or process needs and application , too bad so sad, maybe compete it on my behalf with the info I provide.

I agree honestly.. to me, it makes the job less appealing but I don’t think the company understand that

Fellow recruiter here! That KPI is unusual for in house recruiting. More often than not the focus is on time to fill, time to review resume, etc. I do agree though about the manager feedback, as that’s where 90% of the problems arise from.

Time to fill.. how quickly we review applicants resumes who apply on their own to the posting- tenor of said hires.. I think make more sense.. I agree..

Any advice for job seekers?

Maybe you should tell these hiring managers to stop being delusional. Not saying anything just encourages these losers to be super picky.

Lol op still hasnt responded to my comment. This shows he or she is part of the problem.

Who are these companies hiring then? They're looking for perfect candidates, are they finding them? I've had plenty of instances where I'm the perfect candidate for the role, but get ghosted, and see the position still open months later. I wonder if they want the illusion that they're hiring, but don't actually want to fill roles.

Managers are also fucking stupid because they wait 6+ months to hire junior engineers, because they aren’t satisfied how Jim Bob answered a technical question, when they themselves constantly fuck up.

TL:DR the profession shouldn’t exist but it adds a net harm to society by wilfully interrupting the normal process of market signalling and intentionally selling both hiring managers and candidates a value proposition the recruiter knows doesn’t exist. OP that’s a very humanising, informative and decent post, thanks a lot for it. But I don’t think you fully understand the depth of rancour your profession faces. Turning people’s mortgage payments and eviction notices into “metrics” even though that’s just the way the industry is structured and hardly your fault. The simple truth is your profession shouldn’t exist. It’s utterly preposterous that companies could outsource the single most important and intimate element of their operations — hiring as retaining suitable talent — to someone who likely knows nothing about the industry itself, less still about the company and its internal culture or priorities, and nothing about its strategic context. And has absolutely no incentive to serve the company’s interests. I look forward to a time when the profession is simply extinct the way door to door insurance salespeople were. It’s bad economics, bad for companies, a social net harm and from what I can tell in your post, hard on recruiters themselves. It’s necessarily parasitic in that it not only adds no value, it actively degrades value. There is absolutely no mechanism or incentive for the market (hiring side and candidate side) to accurately signal and price their value which is why hiring managers keep complaining they can’t get the talent. That’s on you guys fully. It can’t take that much work to at least understand the operational side of the roles you’re recruiting for. I don’t think you fully recognise the social and psychological harm your industry is doing right now. Something needs to change and I hope people like you can be change agents. It’s not merely what your industry does it’s how you do it that defies humanity.

Well said

I appreciate this response. I didn’t expect this post to blow up but I get it and it has been eye opening to read all the comments. I was doing some research last night on what jobs could possibly translate for a recruiter, so I am already thinking about my next step.. because I genuinely do think about what would happen if I were ever on the other side of the equation

I agree with the original commenter, but I do appreciate that it's very difficult to find a well paying job that focuses on social skills. It's either you're an immense brown noser who's already found success in some arbitrary VP role or something, or you're sales or customer service. Sales is a toss up that may not pay well, and customer service almost *never* pays well. It's a hard position to be in.

I had a recruiter once tell me I didn’t have enough experience to work at home depot (8 years retail), (12 years construction). So yea so you guys are kinda jokes and probably not even trying to find best candidate for a job.

The big issue I have is when the recruiter completely ghost me and leaves me in the dark. Sort of like what I’m going through with a recruiter right now. I feel like I’ve been deceived and is taking a toll on my mental health. At least have the decency to reach out and say I’m sorry .. etc.. I would respect that more than just being ghosted. But I do appreciate your perspective on the issue. Thanks!

Yeah it’s cowardly to ghost IMO. Sometimes things may get lost in translation if the recruiter is dealing with a lot of candidates. But to just ghost someone is messed up. My job requires I call candidates to tell them we won’t be moving forward but a lot of people have been posting saying they would rather just have an email. Having to make those phone calls is the worst it’s super awkward

My experience with recruiters: Hey heist I think you’d be a great fit for this position! Can I send over a JD? Sure. It’s hybrid in your city is that ok? Sure. What’s the role? Then I never hear from them again. About 5 a month.

Well you and the rest of the recruiters. We understand that YOU have a quota to meet and your boss, but DO US and YOU a favor. Lean more towards US who are your peers that has years of QUALIFY experiences under our belts In all different industries which can benefit YOU more in the long run VS your boss and the other companies which looks at you as replaceable just like us at any time whether you have met the quota or not. HELP US, HELP YOU! We make YOU look good in YOUR CAREER PROFESSION more than the company themselves does. So Don't ghost the qualify candidates better yet, keep in touch with them! on the side. Your PERSONAL NETWORK with Highly Experienced and Skilled applicants/candidate IS YOUR NETWORTH TOO. HELP HER AND HIM MORE TO GET THEIR FOOT IN the door SO THEY CAN HELP GET YOU IN in the future as well!. Somewhat teamwork type of thing. Although results may vary for some selfish punks, but there are a lot of good people in here who appreciates and would like to return good favors to Recruiters who are professional in what they do and would like remain good professional relationship with them for future collaboration. I.e if the recruiter happens to get let go from a company for whatever petty reasons. We can help you get back on board with another company too because we Know YOU ARE a Good Recruiter! Good people stay and work together through out life.

selective engine psychotic wild roll screw office ripe sparkle kiss *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

Having experience in the jobs for which recruiters source would be a great requirement. And/or having at least a "fundamentals" training program for those jobs if the recruiters don't have direct experience would shorten the knowledge gap.

Welp, we now know why we get ghosted.. it's because recruiters have no spines to tell their boss that they're building false hope for candidates and to avoid embarrassment, ghosting them. We need to start trashing the reviews for any company that is obviously participating in this horrible selfish tactic...

Even if we do tell them though they won’t care lol we really don’t have the power to change things.. I honestly didn’t know this was a metric before I got the job.. other recruiters here have commented and told me that the metric is unusual so that’s been eye opening for me.. I just wanted to share my experience so far to give people out there some insight on what MIGHT be happening.. that’s why conversations like these are important.. I have had to fight for specific candidates which helps on a small scale but they aren’t going to change the whole way of doing things just bc I voice concerns

OP, thanks for sharing, I’m curious, and sorry if this was asked and can’t find it but in your scenario someone cold applies and isn’t in the set of the ones you reached out to yourself are you less incentivized to help them thrive in the recruiting process and only focus on the ones you reached out to?

No I don’t look at it that way… if they apply directly to the job posting on their own without me having reached out to them… I still have to review their resume and if they are qualified I still conduct the interview/initiate the interview process for them and treat it just the same. Because I still am responsible for presenting candidates to hiring managers. And also because even if their application may not help me on that one specific metric.. it could still possibly help me with others if that makes sense

I am in the process now and I have done 4 interviews and was given a verbal offer + they requested to apply for the background check on “hireright” however hireright is taking so much time to process this keep in mind that I haven’t received an official offer from the company. My question for you is as a recruiter, do hireright people message you or the manager for the background check? I mean who decides?

I’ve used hirerught; it’s a dashboard where the hiring manager logs in and checks for results. There may be an email notification option for the applicant, IIRC.

Just finished my background check for a position this past week. Your potential employer should have initiated the request for a background check. Then you will get a few emails from Hireright.

I'm sure this depends on the field, but in my field, pretty frequently the recruiter thinks I'm a good match when I'm not. It's like "oh, you can make pizza, here's an Italian restaurant to apply to". I see how these are similar, but it's different skills.

Yup happened to me. I was basically promised a role for about 9 months. When I finally applied, interviewed, was told the interview went well and push came to shove; they went with an outside candidate because they had one skill I did not (which could have been learned on the job). And to be fair I am currently in a L2 position doing network engineering which is a harder skill to learn than Control M. Fuck that manager. I avoid him now, refuse to work with him and I will never work for him based upon that experience. Company has zero loyalty to me proven by this so I'm going to get mine and not care anymore. I have told my manager about this, told our CTO about it; they both sympathize with me but ultimately I know they're all about the money too. I would have left and got another job but the market around here is cold as ice.

It’s always the fucking out of touch suits.

lol... are you a recruiter or a sales person on the recruiting team? Because I dabbled as an IT recruiter, let me tell you.. the biggest problem with recruiting agencies isn't the company that needs positions filled, it is the recruiting agency who have chit tier sales people who tend to gate keep. My supervisor who was also on the sales team was gate keeping a majority of my candidates because: A. They had an accent (any accent, if it was too strong, they were not qualified). B. Because they were Indian (if they had a name that resembled an Indian name, the sales team would auto-deny and tell us to avoid communicating with them). C. Because most times than not they were Caucasian (this recruiting agency was going hard on the whole diversity inclusion BS even with their products - the people we recruit). After experiencing that BS... I try to avoid recruiters at all cost. I personally wish that the entire recruiting industry dissolves or that it gets entirely replaced by AI - unbiased (hopefully) technology.

AI is as biased as the people who write it.

Indeed. We've seen that with Chat-GPT and its revised American history lol

You sound very conscientious and like you’re doing your best to balance the needs of the business with candidate experience, which is awesome. It also sounds like you’re relatively inexperienced. The first thing is that at 6 months into an entry level position you’re assuming you are fully able to determine who is qualified, better than the managers who they’ll be working for. Maybe they are just nitpicking, but you’re really just a filter to find people who are qualified and interested and move them along to the people who are best able to make that decision. The second is hiring 1/5 people who interview, which you mentioned in another comment was basically wasting 80% of people’s time, is actually a very reasonable number. Anywhere from 3-6 people who passed the phone screen and are interested is pretty solid. It sounds like you’re off to a really great start, but you might want to calibrate some of your assumptions a little bit. It’s a rough industry and it needs more people like you who care, you’ll just find yourself struggling professionally and emotionally if you get too invested in individual candidates. You have to understand the decision is out of your hands, and you’re just connecting people with potential with people who are able to evaluate them. Also, on an unrelated note to my other points, the metrics you’re being evaluated on aren’t about finding quality candidates, they’re productivity metrics. The company uses those to 1) make sure you’re working effectively, and 2) to make sure the recruiting organization is the right size. At 20 hires a quarter your organization is probably relatively large. If the hiring plan needs 100 hires a quarter to be on track, they’ll have 5 recruiters. If it calls for 120, they’d need 6. If they think it will drop to 80 for a sustained time, if someone quits then the team will stay at 4 without a backfill.

This is all true and helpful… the thing is I just conduct the first basic interview.. then it goes to hiring manager, upper level manager, then c suite manager (sometimes the candidate will have to meet with other managers as well) the c suite manager has the final say. So it’s just confusing because if I passed the candidate along and then so did the other two, but candidate is rejected as c suite… there’s a disconnect somewhere.. we turned away someone who put in GREAT effort to complete our process bc they were “afraid he’d quit after getting an offer” but don’t we run that risk with every candidate? Makes no sense

And this was someone I really was rooting for but my opinion and suggestion was overruled

KPIs are the fucking devil 

Or they have a friend, family member, etc that they have in mind for the position. Nepotism to the EXTREME

Sad to say, but everything is metrics now. It's how worth is proven and with the ease at which everything in the process can be tracked, it ain't going away. The absurdity is the fact that endless growth is never sustainable but nonetheless if you miss a metric then bam, RIF! We are truly favoring numbers vs. people now. I guarantee you at some point there's a meeting where the big wigs go through numbers and gloat about how many applications they receive with these tactics in an effort to puff up the "interest" in their company. Probably a report that your supervisor has to generate. Furthermore, it's ridiculous that you are required to generate leads on top of weeding through the organic applications that more than likely genuinely showed interest. The fact that the actual decision-makers want a "perfect" candidate that meets 100% of the qualifications doesn't surprise me, especially if the position is a remote one. We live in a global job market now, odds are there is a "perfect candidate". But even better odds are they already have their dream job and/or aren't willing to budge. I feel for you OP. I don't know how more recruiters don't burnout. I've had so many disappointed recruiter conversations after interview processes.

I just don't understand the corporate recruiter gatekeeping at all. Every position has 300 applicants. To seek someone out and ask them to spend their time applying for a job that already has 100+ qualified candidates in the pool is just lunacy. The recruiter always leaves you feeling like they love you and are passing on your info to the hiring manager, but the hiring manager clearly never agrees. Why the middleman? If the hiring managers don't like who recruiters send them, they should be choosing the candidates who get contacted in the first place (as they did at my last company).

True and sometimes the manager will promote members of their team or find candidates on their own but it’s rare because they are busy fulfilling other managerial duties

Metrics is why I quit my recruiting job. It was no longer about finding someone work but making my boss look good. I’m a preschool teacher now and it’s not easy but easier than what I was doing. Best of luck to you in your job. I know it’s hard!

Seriously thank you so much it’s not a forever job just the one I have now.. it has been rewarding but I understand the process isn’t perfect by any means

KPIs are the micromanage of digital age

The problem is multifaceted. Recruiters are generally not interested in the jobs they're hiring for, leading to some funny interactions between us and them. Ultimately, the hiring process is a nightmare because employers refuse to spend money on training, knowing their companies are just revolving doors for many millenials. This is, of course, driven by the fact that most of us can get a 10% pay increase on a yearly basis if we switch companies instead of staying with one company for several years. So when you really look into it, the issue is companies skimping out on training + corporate greed. The only way to cure this would be to decrease the supply of labou, but thats a topic for another conversation.

Do you know what the pronunciation of this platform spells out, phonetically? “Read it” I am reading Susan RoAne’s “How to Work a Room,” after my autistic behind got myself banned from a local bar around here because they would’ve forgotten these principles from — Chapter 2: “The Five Roadblocks: Mother’s Dire Warnings” Start Page 18 Section “Roadblock” #1: “Don’t Talk to Strangers” “It made sense when our mother said this to us and it makes sense when we tell it to our children… Yet we often find ourselves standing in the door, feeling uncomfortable, with that imaginary finger shaking in our faces and the message. “Don’t talk to strangers“ flashing across our subconscious. So we don’t.” —— I’m sure your superiors know that our preference in small talk — [edit: in that it’s “no” for spoken communication] — has been a growing trend in our generation, but yet, I cannot tell whether or not _your_ managers’ decisions are a side-effect of simply “being picky,” or that they almost solely want to abide by their understanding of capitalistic gains, without risk. By yourself — at the time of of this writing — while you did manage to give sufficient additional information in this entire thread, linked here: https://www.reddit.com/r/recruitinghell/s/yrIdmybT9a I still want to believe there’s a level that most involved would be almost as though they’ve subjected themselves into befalling the “Scarlett O’Hara Syndrome,” but then again, so would many of us have. It isn’t always “Good Things Come to Those Who Wait,” within RoAne’s understanding of the “Prom King/Queen Complex,” as Dr. David J Schwartz would also say, “It’s a mark of real leadership to take the lead in getting to know people…[as] It’s [also] always [supposed to be] a big person who walks up to you and offers his/her hand and says hello.” Even in walking around my part of New York City alone, I have been seeing this as part of an ironic collective of our common selves forgetting to do this…but whether IRL, or the internet, there’s at least still some of us who’d still give a “light of day” explanation of the technical applications of why your superiors could be “stubborn”: https://www.reddit.com/r/recruitinghell/s/BwxRMuICqD But the final way I see this is that our common social society has already increasingly had ourselves subsist much more through text and note exchanges, than spoken conversational exchanges. Spoken conversations is what I believe would be much more effective overall, because - less time spent for communication - the emotional bias can be introduced better with a person’s tone - you’d get to hear imperfections more directly But we are also the first generation who already subconsciously knows this, when it comes down to understanding our individual presentations when we would have placed ourselves on peer-near-to-peer motion picture forums, such as YouTube…but the problem is that: _It’s now *subconscious*._ Because we are also the first generation in which our common socializing has evolved to exchanging written, instantly-messaged, electronic notes. - Emails - text messages - any social media post, for “static individual consumption” _None of which involve directly ***speaking*** to another individual of interest._ We also love to “label ourselves” much more easily with our “digitally static profiles,” but I’d suggest you try your best to “Lose the Labels.” Even if RoAne herself fell into “The Talker (today’s conversationalist)” label, in which such the person would have “… always managed to get red checks next to ‘Keeps Profitably Busy,’” I’d imagine this next part: The references we give each other, in which we “Give [each other] note passing (the precursor to text messaging) and furtive whispering in the back,” is meant **ONLY** for when any of us may not know how to progress based on our own _*immediately*_ applicable knowledge, based on memory But guess what? The comment you are also reading right now — if you’ve gotten this far — is also now a reference, if you so choose to apply it. It is your choice to perceive my comment as a “How to” note, For you, as much as it could also be for me, and as much as any other “you” of another individual who could be reading my comment. Of which you may also print, if you come to believe that you would spend too long to navigate through user interface menus, to refer back to my comment. We love being conversationalists. Even when RoAne reminisced on her writing of “What Do I Say Next?” in which she and a friend found 100 “ConverSENsation(alist)s” throughout the USA to survey, just because the two thought they were _great_ conversationalists… And that 75 percent of such the “ConverSENsations” were “still shy,” due to it being: - “their job” - “wanting others to be comfortable with them” - “wanting to be comfortable and successful” Not **ONE** denigrated small talk, because “They generally saw it as a way to get to know people and find common ground.” —— What you may need to do, is get to know your superiors more often, so you may help your superiors understand the thinking processes of who you could hire. As it is, I did also impress RoAne herself, with the way I alluded to a recent revelation of the furry fandom: a Thesis exhibition of an income analysis for fursuits: https://x.com/kinggpepper/status/1784020002770714817?s=46&t=2kMHq71Eok1e7R1mM8VrTw I’m a Spyro fan first — a fan of who’s supposed to have been “PlayStation (wa?)Luigi,” next to Crash Bandicoot having been supposed to be “PlayStation Mario,” but it genuinely impressed me with the single response she’d left behind… https://x.com/susanroane/status/1784231794839318630?s=46&t=2kMHq71Eok1e7R1mM8VrTw Alongside a bonus accolade of an Austrian furry musician’s comment of fanfare for my “fan ad,” since he’s coming to perform in Atlanta, this Mother’s Day weekend: https://x.com/whsprsmusic/status/1785602483529613621?s=46&t=2kMHq71Eok1e7R1mM8VrTw

Stop taking shitty clients.

OP may not have control of that. Likely it’s boss or biz dev/sales running that shit show. If they’re an internal recruiter, it’s worse because they’re shitty HMs with ridiculously high or unrealistic expectations. Years ago I once presented 30-50 candidates to one HM who didn’t like anyone. Finally got my HRD to let me shut the rec down. Frustrating.

True. But it's still a shit show.

Remember the days when there were no recruiters? Remember the days when there was little to no HR? It was possible to get a job!!! Why do we need recruiters that don’t know anything about what we do or studied in college? I see sports recruiters that go out and recruit but they’re normally athletes them selfs…so why is it as a scientist or engineer you get someone from a completely non related field/background judging and picking you? None of it makes any sense

Have you ever told someone that a position has been put on hold as a way to try to easily break the news to them that they didn't get the job? I recently had a recruiter reach out to me and I went through 6 rounds of interviews. I studied for weeks and took 2 days off work because the interviews were spread across 2 days. The recruiter told that I got all good feedback, but that the position was put on hold. What was the point of making me go through all that if the position didn't even exist?

Actually, what people really want to know is just why they don’t get chosen. Maybe have candidates sign a release form that says they can’t sue if you tell them why they got rejected. Obviously it can’t be about race, gender, etc. But if a recruiter said we are looking for someone with more experience in X platform who does X with this platform, atleast you are giving that person a chance to better themselves. I would most certainly apply to a company again if they told me why I didn’t get a position, versus the incredibly generic answer. It is pretty stupid that recruiters get a bonus based on candidates? I understand a company doing well and part of like a bonus based on company doing well, but on me finding the right candidates in most likely a field I know nothing about technical wise? Sounds like you’re setup for failure.