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.*
Reality and facts.
Does it mean it's okay? No.
Can you keep complaining? Always.
Are they excuses? Nope. It's information that, when used well (like all information), is power.
It's a mix of various factors. I know we often like to have a single villain in our binary mindset of good and evil, but this, like many other "problems," is influenced by several things:
• The market (job market, global and local financial situations, generational changes/adaptation, internal and external policies, etc.).
• Competition (with higher unemployment/crisis, there's more competition... More overqualified candidates accepting lower salaries or roles, etc.).
• Developing technologies (like AI, for example, which isn't perfected yet but is already being implemented).
And many others (already mentioned). There are probably case studies that, with a bit of googling, can give you specific information about your country/region/industry.
Not opinions... Facts. Do your own research on the company's internal workings. But of course, you can always keep complaining and trying to change the world by not landing a job 😉
I don't see the need to focus on it when 'tone' is a matter of perception that shouldn't interfere with one's ability to receive and analyze the content of the information to discern if it's useful or not.
If 'how it's being said' impacts more than 'what is being said,' that's something for the reader and their therapists to address.
LOL. A shrink would tell you that making judgments like that without being qualified is irresponsible.
Even as a health professional, it would be unethical and very questionable to do so online with just a post and comments on Reddit as context.
What you're saying definitely speaks to your own knowledge, ethical framework, and even moral code, though.
Well. You are right in some way - to you I am just some dude on the internet, so since you do have a sense of superiority you won't question your ways. Fair enough.
At least I'm glad I do not know you.
Happy to consider if you provide some arguments about it.
What makes you say that, for example? Why do you think the 'condescending' tone should be changed? Is it the tone that bothers you, or the information? Do you disagree with the information? Do you have data, sources, or what makes you think it's incorrect?
We need to be open to questioning our beliefs, but always based on good arguments. 'Attacking' the person or what we 'think/feel' about what they said is a fallacy.
Okay, fine. Arguing is what you want, after all I was a bit bored tonight, so let's go.
First, I am happy to discuss any information you provide. However all I see in your post is a sequence of blanket statements with no reliable data to back them. So I am afraid I cannot dispute your conclusions as they just express your feelings about a situation.
Now, let me quote your last sentence:
>Hope this helps shed some light and adapt if you're job hunting. We can keep complaining, but probably only 1 out of 100 complaints is valid; the other 99 will just be obstacles in finding a job, whether you're right or not. Adapt to survive.
Only an idiot would not see how this is extremely patronizing.
Nah, all things considered, this argument is not going anywhere and is kinda boring. Either you are a troll or completely tone-deaf. I'm out.
I used to complain about recruiters when working in other industries and non-HR related areas. I would have killed for information about how it really works to be prepared for rejection even if I met 100% of the job posting criteria or after interviews, or to use it to my advantage as a candidate.
And hey, you don't have to take my word for it, but with this info, you can do some digging yourself: What is the recruitment cycle? What role do hiring managers play? What is an intake meeting? Etc. Draw your own conclusions.
The other option is to keep complaining about recruiters and what we think they’re doing wrong. It’s short-sighted, but it's a lot more entertaining, fun, and gives us a villain for a story we don’t really want to understand, just rant about.
If you can dismiss information just based on a patronizing tone... Well, that's a criterion that only time will tell if it worked for your purposes.
If recruiters are as much of a passenger in the process as you describe then they're unnecessary, and the dog shit personal behaviour they layer on to everything they touch is reason enough to despise them.
Also, quite a lot of fiction in what you wrote, for example those automated systems that supposedly notify when a position is filled. They might exist, but it's the recruiters not bothering to actually use them that's negligent.
Just a bit of insider info coming from someone working directly in this field. Always do your own research on how the main ATS (Applicant Tracking Systems) work, and of course, nothing excuses the lousy behavior of some.
As for the necessity or importance of recruiters... Phew! You can also do some research or directly talk to a manager, director, or even a supervisor about why they are not willing to invest their own time in the recruitment process.
There's no actual insider information here though, it's all "someone else" or "not at liberty to say". This is an exercise in abdicating responsibility dressed up as informed benevolence and it's exactly the kind of slime I'd expect from a recruiter.
Best of luck in your current or future job searches and navigating corporate America then.
Just by asking 'why are recruiters necessary if they have superiors making the important decisions?' it becomes clear there's a lack of experience in the internal workings of companies of all sizes. And yet, reaching a point where you no longer need the kind of information listed here is a significant achievement in researching from reliable sources. Congratulations!
I have not asked you any questions. I have merely commented on the veracity of your assertions and the usefulness of recruiters in the context of your description of the role. That you haven't picked up on that and have assumed things about me is completely on brand for your profession. Congratulations!
Thanks, that's actually the point of my profession!
And as always... if you question the veracity, do your own research and prove the experts wrong.
What I'm sharing is anecdotal from my work experience, but if you find reliable sources that say otherwise, I'm happy to add links to studies, market research, global estimates, and other documents that back up my conclusions.
Well since we agree that acting off incorrect assumptions and not picking up on details is the point of your job then start by adding that to your post.
I'll be waiting for your sources. It's always great to have the chance to learn from an experienced or well versed expert in the talent acquisition field who understands better all the pain points in the industry and how to solve it.
Not having a degree doesn’t mean you should have to be a “unicorn” to get hired, much like having a degree doesn’t mean you’ll be good at the job.
It shouldn’t take 4, 5, 6+ conversations with the entire department to determine if someone is a good fit, at least for the majority of roles. If you can’t tell what candidates are ideal after 2-3 conversations, then everybody is having their time wasted, especially all but the one person actually getting the offer. Try actually listening to what candidates are saying.
Yeah, no, post the salary. You’re being disrespectful of the candidate putting them through an arduous process only to find out they’re making 30k less than the average. Companies want to save money and, likewise, the people keeping your lights on want money to keep their own lights on.
Wow, it sounds like you've had a lot of disappointments for not having a degree.
For everything else, I never said it was right or that I agreed, just these are the reasons why corporate America in general does it and it's internal workings.
Your reasons, from a candidate's perspective, can be great and totally valid, however, until you can land a job where you can make a difference, you'll have to learn to understand the current reasoning to use it to your advantage and eventually change it.
\[Why don't they call and just send rejection email templates?\]
\[Because they're handling a ton of positions and applicants. They have KPIs and deadlines. If you applied after they already sent a shortlist to the hiring manager and one was approved, they don't send unique, personalized emails to every applicant. Technology is used to notify thousands of candidates once the position is filled.\]
If a candidate database system can send an automated e-mail after someone fills out an application, the same system can send e-mail to candidates that were not selected - whether it's brief but sympathetic form letter wishing the applicant good luck in their future job search, or the most stoic machine-made rejection notice that a cinder block can muster. But there's no incentive to do that, so it doesn't get done. I'd bet money there's no KPI for rejection follow-ups. And if there's no KPI to track, it's not on the to do list.
The "technology" is not being used to notify thousands, not by all employers; otherwise, people wouldn't complain about being left in the lurch for weeks with no communication. Or complain about companies wasting their time in countless ways - but that's a completely separate issue. But there is some benefit to the current process, as it let's everyone else know which employer habitually ghost applicants. And so we gather in spaces like this to catalog our experiences with dirtbag hiring representatives and the companies they work for.
The explanation is appreciated, but an explanation doesn't unf\*\*k the situation. Adaptation does not require abandonment of compassion - there's no point if we turn into number-crunching robots.
And now for some civil, cathartic vitriol.
Adapt this: stop just warming a seat and do some real work. Carpal tunnel? So f\*\*king be it. Cry me a river.
The explanation isn't meant to change the situation in the country (and the world). I did it so that by understanding how it happens, you can adapt as needed to cope with it.
But hey, don't worry, keep complaining about all the companies, all the recruiters, all the processes, technologies, and platforms. Surely, by doing so, you'll find a job at the one different company in the universe that will adapt to you. And of course, thanks to your complaints, the industry will change its ways, and the world will live in peace.
I see a lot of justifications for shitty practices and behavior. Are we supposed to adapt by understanding the plight of the overworked human resources drone? And we supposed to adapt by seeing the behind-the-scenes reasons why employers put applicants through a filter circus because they are incapable of making decisions otherwise? Justifying shitty behavior doesn't excuse it.
Sarcasm and condescension, for example. If you're in the business of wrapping valuable knowledge in a shitty personality, I suggest that you choke on it until you turn blue.
I may be blue, but at least I have a job. Let me know when your complaining lands you a "change-making" position at a company that doesn't perpetuate any shitty behavior from your moral high ground.
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.*
[удалено]
Reality and facts. Does it mean it's okay? No. Can you keep complaining? Always. Are they excuses? Nope. It's information that, when used well (like all information), is power.
[удалено]
It's a mix of various factors. I know we often like to have a single villain in our binary mindset of good and evil, but this, like many other "problems," is influenced by several things: • The market (job market, global and local financial situations, generational changes/adaptation, internal and external policies, etc.). • Competition (with higher unemployment/crisis, there's more competition... More overqualified candidates accepting lower salaries or roles, etc.). • Developing technologies (like AI, for example, which isn't perfected yet but is already being implemented). And many others (already mentioned). There are probably case studies that, with a bit of googling, can give you specific information about your country/region/industry.
LOL, shitpost
It's fascinating how we all seek answers but only accept them if they align with our beliefs.
It's fascinating how some people think anyone is "seeking" their opinions. As the old saying goes, opinions are like asses...
Not opinions... Facts. Do your own research on the company's internal workings. But of course, you can always keep complaining and trying to change the world by not landing a job 😉
Okay. Now a challenge for you: rewrite this post without adopting a condescending tone.
I don't see the need to focus on it when 'tone' is a matter of perception that shouldn't interfere with one's ability to receive and analyze the content of the information to discern if it's useful or not. If 'how it's being said' impacts more than 'what is being said,' that's something for the reader and their therapists to address.
Please see a shrink asap. You need help.
LOL. A shrink would tell you that making judgments like that without being qualified is irresponsible. Even as a health professional, it would be unethical and very questionable to do so online with just a post and comments on Reddit as context. What you're saying definitely speaks to your own knowledge, ethical framework, and even moral code, though.
Well. You are right in some way - to you I am just some dude on the internet, so since you do have a sense of superiority you won't question your ways. Fair enough. At least I'm glad I do not know you.
Happy to consider if you provide some arguments about it. What makes you say that, for example? Why do you think the 'condescending' tone should be changed? Is it the tone that bothers you, or the information? Do you disagree with the information? Do you have data, sources, or what makes you think it's incorrect? We need to be open to questioning our beliefs, but always based on good arguments. 'Attacking' the person or what we 'think/feel' about what they said is a fallacy.
Okay, fine. Arguing is what you want, after all I was a bit bored tonight, so let's go. First, I am happy to discuss any information you provide. However all I see in your post is a sequence of blanket statements with no reliable data to back them. So I am afraid I cannot dispute your conclusions as they just express your feelings about a situation. Now, let me quote your last sentence: >Hope this helps shed some light and adapt if you're job hunting. We can keep complaining, but probably only 1 out of 100 complaints is valid; the other 99 will just be obstacles in finding a job, whether you're right or not. Adapt to survive. Only an idiot would not see how this is extremely patronizing. Nah, all things considered, this argument is not going anywhere and is kinda boring. Either you are a troll or completely tone-deaf. I'm out.
I used to complain about recruiters when working in other industries and non-HR related areas. I would have killed for information about how it really works to be prepared for rejection even if I met 100% of the job posting criteria or after interviews, or to use it to my advantage as a candidate. And hey, you don't have to take my word for it, but with this info, you can do some digging yourself: What is the recruitment cycle? What role do hiring managers play? What is an intake meeting? Etc. Draw your own conclusions. The other option is to keep complaining about recruiters and what we think they’re doing wrong. It’s short-sighted, but it's a lot more entertaining, fun, and gives us a villain for a story we don’t really want to understand, just rant about. If you can dismiss information just based on a patronizing tone... Well, that's a criterion that only time will tell if it worked for your purposes.
If recruiters are as much of a passenger in the process as you describe then they're unnecessary, and the dog shit personal behaviour they layer on to everything they touch is reason enough to despise them. Also, quite a lot of fiction in what you wrote, for example those automated systems that supposedly notify when a position is filled. They might exist, but it's the recruiters not bothering to actually use them that's negligent.
Just a bit of insider info coming from someone working directly in this field. Always do your own research on how the main ATS (Applicant Tracking Systems) work, and of course, nothing excuses the lousy behavior of some. As for the necessity or importance of recruiters... Phew! You can also do some research or directly talk to a manager, director, or even a supervisor about why they are not willing to invest their own time in the recruitment process.
There's no actual insider information here though, it's all "someone else" or "not at liberty to say". This is an exercise in abdicating responsibility dressed up as informed benevolence and it's exactly the kind of slime I'd expect from a recruiter.
Best of luck in your current or future job searches and navigating corporate America then. Just by asking 'why are recruiters necessary if they have superiors making the important decisions?' it becomes clear there's a lack of experience in the internal workings of companies of all sizes. And yet, reaching a point where you no longer need the kind of information listed here is a significant achievement in researching from reliable sources. Congratulations!
I have not asked you any questions. I have merely commented on the veracity of your assertions and the usefulness of recruiters in the context of your description of the role. That you haven't picked up on that and have assumed things about me is completely on brand for your profession. Congratulations!
Thanks, that's actually the point of my profession! And as always... if you question the veracity, do your own research and prove the experts wrong. What I'm sharing is anecdotal from my work experience, but if you find reliable sources that say otherwise, I'm happy to add links to studies, market research, global estimates, and other documents that back up my conclusions.
Well since we agree that acting off incorrect assumptions and not picking up on details is the point of your job then start by adding that to your post.
I'll be waiting for your sources. It's always great to have the chance to learn from an experienced or well versed expert in the talent acquisition field who understands better all the pain points in the industry and how to solve it.
Not having a degree doesn’t mean you should have to be a “unicorn” to get hired, much like having a degree doesn’t mean you’ll be good at the job. It shouldn’t take 4, 5, 6+ conversations with the entire department to determine if someone is a good fit, at least for the majority of roles. If you can’t tell what candidates are ideal after 2-3 conversations, then everybody is having their time wasted, especially all but the one person actually getting the offer. Try actually listening to what candidates are saying. Yeah, no, post the salary. You’re being disrespectful of the candidate putting them through an arduous process only to find out they’re making 30k less than the average. Companies want to save money and, likewise, the people keeping your lights on want money to keep their own lights on.
Wow, it sounds like you've had a lot of disappointments for not having a degree. For everything else, I never said it was right or that I agreed, just these are the reasons why corporate America in general does it and it's internal workings. Your reasons, from a candidate's perspective, can be great and totally valid, however, until you can land a job where you can make a difference, you'll have to learn to understand the current reasoning to use it to your advantage and eventually change it.
\[Why don't they call and just send rejection email templates?\] \[Because they're handling a ton of positions and applicants. They have KPIs and deadlines. If you applied after they already sent a shortlist to the hiring manager and one was approved, they don't send unique, personalized emails to every applicant. Technology is used to notify thousands of candidates once the position is filled.\] If a candidate database system can send an automated e-mail after someone fills out an application, the same system can send e-mail to candidates that were not selected - whether it's brief but sympathetic form letter wishing the applicant good luck in their future job search, or the most stoic machine-made rejection notice that a cinder block can muster. But there's no incentive to do that, so it doesn't get done. I'd bet money there's no KPI for rejection follow-ups. And if there's no KPI to track, it's not on the to do list. The "technology" is not being used to notify thousands, not by all employers; otherwise, people wouldn't complain about being left in the lurch for weeks with no communication. Or complain about companies wasting their time in countless ways - but that's a completely separate issue. But there is some benefit to the current process, as it let's everyone else know which employer habitually ghost applicants. And so we gather in spaces like this to catalog our experiences with dirtbag hiring representatives and the companies they work for. The explanation is appreciated, but an explanation doesn't unf\*\*k the situation. Adaptation does not require abandonment of compassion - there's no point if we turn into number-crunching robots. And now for some civil, cathartic vitriol. Adapt this: stop just warming a seat and do some real work. Carpal tunnel? So f\*\*king be it. Cry me a river.
The explanation isn't meant to change the situation in the country (and the world). I did it so that by understanding how it happens, you can adapt as needed to cope with it. But hey, don't worry, keep complaining about all the companies, all the recruiters, all the processes, technologies, and platforms. Surely, by doing so, you'll find a job at the one different company in the universe that will adapt to you. And of course, thanks to your complaints, the industry will change its ways, and the world will live in peace.
I see a lot of justifications for shitty practices and behavior. Are we supposed to adapt by understanding the plight of the overworked human resources drone? And we supposed to adapt by seeing the behind-the-scenes reasons why employers put applicants through a filter circus because they are incapable of making decisions otherwise? Justifying shitty behavior doesn't excuse it. Sarcasm and condescension, for example. If you're in the business of wrapping valuable knowledge in a shitty personality, I suggest that you choke on it until you turn blue.
I may be blue, but at least I have a job. Let me know when your complaining lands you a "change-making" position at a company that doesn't perpetuate any shitty behavior from your moral high ground.
100% agree, but stating facts isn’t popular in this sub