Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For the initial contact/application submittal that usually goes to the HR department I just send it in whenever it's finished. For steps further on in the process when I am communicating directly with my potential future boss (ie follow-ups/thank you emails, 2nd interview logistics, etc) I would make sure the email goes out during business hours.
Issues of advantage aside (I say "no" and when hiring actually look at my e-mails in chronological order), you're making a lot of assumptions about the number of e-mails the HR person gets, and when they get them. If you send your e-mail between 7-9 am, that person may already have 50 newer e-mails by the time they check their e-mail. You just don't know. A lot of people will get international e-mails... tons of e-mails from employees on-site... listservs, etc.. You just have no idea. You also don't know if the person is constantly on a Blackberry or iPhone checking mail. You cannot assume that the person arrives at X time, and your e-mail is one of the newest e-mails at that time.
Rsepctfully, I'll take my wife's word over yours, thanks. If nothing else, she's a lot more polite than you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
Then goes on to make a generalized statement about how most recruiters are clueless and lazy.
Clearly, that got under your skin. Well, no problem; I'll clear things up for you here in just a moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
I will point out a few things wrong with this:
And I'll gladly correct your misapprehensions and incorrect presumptions. Thanks for asking!
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
1. The poster was not in HR,
Wrong. I said that my wife has been in HR for over 20 years. I said nothing about whether or not I had ever been (and in fact I have been).
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
doubtful ever was,
The fact that you doubt something doesn't make it wrong, Boxus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
and is easily shown not to have a concept of HR and the recruiting process from those who actually are involved in these things.
I will be pleased to discuss the qualitative differences between outside/agency recruiters and inside/corporate recruiters with you all day long, sir/madam. I think you're quite familiar with one side of that coin but not at all familiar with the other side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
2. The overly generalization of recruiters as "lazy and clueless" a perfect excuse to make his post even more truthful.
It's pretty clear that you took offense at that, and I'm certainly sorry that bothered you. That said, both my wife and I have spoken to and dealt with MANY recruiters who, when it comes right down to it, don't have the least clue about the specifics of what they're looking for. Perhaps you've never been the callee in a situation like that, but I have, many times. In my experience, and in my wife's experience, outside agency recruiters *in particular* are often completely in the dark about what a given position entails. Inside recruiters tend to be less clueless in my experience, but if the position in question is highly technical, not many recruiters on either side are going to be able to ask detailed questions of a candidate over the phone. This lack of understanding on the part of recruiters can lead to wasted time and effort on a candidate's part, as they can get called in for an interview *for a position they're not even qualified to hold.* That is tremendously irritating to candidates, and I speak from long experience on this.
In some cases, it's clear that a recruiter didn't actually read the resume he or she is calling about, but rather that they simply did a keyword text search. If a candidate writes on their resume that they "performed accounting functions on proprietary corporate software running on an AS/400 back end," then why on earth would a recruiter come calling with a job for an AS/400 programmer? I'll tell you why, Boxus. It's because the recruiter was lazy and clueless. It's also because the recruiter didn't understand the position they were trying to fill and simply called every applicant who returned hits during some simple keyword searches. "Hey, this guy's resume says AS/400 in three places. I bet he'll be a great fit for that project lead position we're trying to fill over at XYZ Corp."
In other cases, it's obvious that the recruiter isn't paying attention to the details of the position they're trying to fill, and I'll give you a personal example. About 15 years ago, I was contacted by two different outside agencies, each trying to fill the same Federal contract slot. The first recruiter insisted that I needed to have at least five years' experience with a specific version of a specific software package. The problem with that is that the version in question hadn't even been released yet. I tried to get some sort of clarification from the recruiter, but he insisted -- five years of experience with the nonexistent version or else he couldn't possibly schedule me for an interview. The second recruiter had her head on straight and understood what was going on. She correctly understood that the client sought candidates with at least five years of experience with *any* version of the software package, but that the as-yet unreleased version would be the one used during the course of the project. Since recruiter #2 understood what she was looking for and because she had a clue, she didn't waste anyone's time. She got me in for an interview that same week, and I got the job.
Here's the key takeaway from that, Boxus. The first recruiter was clueless and lazy. And he's not alone; I've spoken to plenty just like him. I'm no longer in the job market, as I plan to retire from my current position within the next 10 years, but I can show you half a dozen e-mails in my inbox *just this week* from recruiters just as clueless as the one I just told you about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
3. The lack of knowledge of the recruitment process is apparent if someone thinks a recruiter just comes in and checks their email lists in the morning, then just takes who ever is at the top.
It sounds to me that you're an internal recruiter, and you may very well do something different. However, my continuing experience with outside/agency recruiters is that they spend a minimum of time and effort actually trying to ensure a good match between openings and candidates. If you're a match for an opening they're actively trying to fill and if you're the first one an outside agency bork sees, then you're the first one he's going to call. I'm sure you know this, but I think it needs to be said here -- a lot of job openings are posted by *agencies,* not necessarily by the companies or organizations doing the hiring.
Try this experiment, Boxus. Since you're apparently a recruiter, why don't you find a recent agency job posting. Look anywhere you please; online, newspapers, agency websites. Spend a half-hour ginning up a fake resume and send the agency bork a cover e-mail and the resume at 7 AM. Then see if the bork replies to you (either by email or phone) by noon. I think you'll see what I'm talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
The recruitment process does not work this way at all.
Again, it sounds like you're an inside recruiter and that you don't have much/any experience with agency recruiting. Agency recruiting does, in fact, work *just like that.*
But more to the point, we're not so much talking about the "recruitment process" as much as we're talking about getting the initial call. That's what the OP was talking about. Other things, like dressing for the interview, hardcopies of resumes, providing references, background checks, etc. weren't really what he was asking about AFAICS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
Again, maybe Joe's Bar does it like this, but any legitimate employer is not going to have an application process even close to being like this.
(snicker)
You'll probably be quite surprised at this, but I agree with you. I hate dealing with agency recruiters specifically because of how they do business. That said, they do serve a need and they're probably not going away any time soon.
My wife's going to love what you said. I bet she'll start calling agency borks "illegitimate."
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
A person just does not "check the top of their emails", and, who even says a person checks their emails and addresses all of them first thing in the morning? As far as anyone knows, the recruiters may not even get to it until the afternoon because of other duties they have. The "check emails in the morning" statement is coming from someone who obvious has never worked or has knowledge of the subject.
Again, Boxus, I think you have either limited experience or no experience whatsoever with or as an agency/outside recruiter, because that most certainly *is* how they work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
Also, other posters have stated they are in the hiring process, I am in the hiring process as well, and I am telling you that it does not matter at what time of the day you send your application is, jsut as long as it is submitted before the closing date.
Once again, we're not talking about the "hiring process" here so much as the 'getting the first call' process.
I'll be perfectly happy to continue this discussion with you if you like, Boxus. That said, I'd hope you could be a bit more polite and a bit less presumptuous in any reply you'd care to post.
I have a former colleague who works in HR at an upper level. He conducts recruitment 2 ways basically--- sometimes they use an online service other times, they'll do it themselves. The old school way was to have a low-level staff member scan the resumes for the key hiring requirements. BUT thanks to the wonder of technology-- and auto-form applications, they have software do that for them. It'll kick resumes that don't have the exact prerequisites like college degree in a particular field, years of experience(s) in specific jobs... certain "keywords" or exact job titles, etc.
Time of submission? I'm sure there's an app for that if they so desire. He and I had a detailed discussion once about how HR software can make their job easier but it also can prevent getting really good job candidates past the initial application process. No one takes calls and although hard submissions (hard copy with cover letter) are still accepted, they just don't seem to get the "human touch" anymore like they used to. People with "soft skills" that would be super at a job requiring good face-to-face interactions can get kicked and not even be in the mix of candidates considered.
The guys at Goldman used to use a Boomerang type product for sending their emails so it looked like they were working 24/7. In that world it is a sign of 'commitment to the firm' if you are working at 2 a.m. To the rest of the world, you are just stupid, but you can't argue with their success in accomplishing their number one corporate objective: making money.
Second, many firms use an electronic scan to whittle down the number of resumes/candidates. It may or may not be 'programmed' to order the qualified candidates by the time at which their credentials were submitted.
Third, we did this at one firm I worked for: Applicants for a certain position were dumped into a file for that job. They sat there until the closing date for the posting. It didn't matter if you were first in, or last in, you simply got dumped into the same pool.
And finally, some firms might care about your aggressiveness in responding, and others may not. If it helps to improve your confidence and helps you maintain a positive mental attitude about your job search, then by all means go ahead and use whatever criteria you wish when applying. It is not wrong to do something for yourself in what is otherwise a very stressful time.
Wow, so you found some blog and it enforces your opinion of what you think it should be, not what it is. I can throw up twenty websites that state twenty different ways a cover letter should be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
Your cover letter sucks, just saying. I hope you are in a field with high demand.
I feel like i just got dissed by a 15 year old girl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
3. The lack of knowledge of the recruitment process is apparent if someone thinks a recruiter just comes in and checks their email lists in the morning, then just takes who ever is at the top. The recruitment process does not work this way at all. Again, maybe Joe's Bar does it like this, but any legitimate employer is not going to have an application process even close to being like this. A person just does not "check the top of their emails", and, who even says a person checks their emails and addresses all of them first thing in the morning? As far as anyone knows, the recruiters may not even get to it until the afternoon because of other duties they have. The "check emails in the morning" statement is coming from someone who obvious has never worked or has knowledge of the subject.
I'm not saying this is how it always happens, but If it works this way in even 5% of circumstances it's worth my time.
and I never said that they just 'checked the top of their emails'...I'm saying an email on the top of the stack may stand out more especially if there's a high number of applicants and be more likely to get attention than one halfway down the page. I'm sure HR gets tired of looking at applications very quickly.
I feel like i just got dissed by a 15 year old girl.
Fallacies do not get you anywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewC7
I'm not saying this is how it always happens, but If it works this way in even 5% of circumstances it's worth my time.
and I never said that they just 'checked the top of their emails'...I'm saying an email on the top of the stack may stand out more especially if there's a high number of applicants and be more likely to get attention than one halfway down the page. I'm sure HR gets tired of looking at applications very quickly.
HR was tired of looking at applications after their first day on the job; it is not the most entertaining thing to do.
Companies have internal and external rules they have to go by. For example, companies that are federal contractors have extra reporting requirements for applicants to the government. They are just not going to browse a few and that is it; they will be setting themselves up for potential disparate treatment/impact issues in the future.
Do you have a job now? Looking for advancement or? Because you should listen to people who are actually in the hiring process right now, not has been, would like to be, etc. Though the advice can be rather unfriendly, you should not just dismiss it because it was not sugar coated and not in-line with what you think it should be.
Plus it depends on your industry, i am in the financial industry, which could/will be different in regards to hiring processes than the construction industry. For example, there are a thousand different cover letters, and a thousand opinions on them; which cover letter is the norm for your industry? Do you know? Simply finding a blog and liking the cover letter because it is short, thus easy for you, does not mean it is a good cover letter.
Rsepctfully, I'll take my wife's word over yours, thanks. If nothing else, she's a lot more polite than you are.
Sorry if I do not sugar coat everything, are you new to forums?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna Meowt
Clearly, that got under your skin. Well, no problem; I'll clear things up for you here in just a moment.
Not at all got under my skin, I do not care, this is a forum for entertainment and advice, I am not the one looking for a job, the OP is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna Meowt
Wrong. I said that my wife has been in HR for over 20 years. I said nothing about whether or not I had ever been (and in fact I have been).
HR is a large area; pay, benefits, recruiting, EEO, etc. Saying someone was in HR means little.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna Meowt
I will be pleased to discuss the qualitative differences between outside/agency recruiters and inside/corporate recruiters with you all day long, sir/madam. I think you're quite familiar with one side of that coin but not at all familiar with the other side.
The OP was not specific regarding outside recruiters or not; just stated applying for individual positions. Which I made the assumption meant directly to companies, I did not notice if the OP clarified this or not in response to my posts. I would assume the OP would if the OP meant outside recruiters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna Meowt
It's pretty clear that you took offense at that, and I'm certainly sorry that bothered you. That said, both my wife and I have spoken to and dealt with MANY recruiters who, when it comes right down to it, don't have the least clue about the specifics of what they're looking for. Perhaps you've never been the callee in a situation like that, but I have, many times. In my experience, and in my wife's experience, outside agency recruiters *in particular* are often completely in the dark about what a given position entails. Inside recruiters tend to be less clueless in my experience, but if the position in question is highly technical, not many recruiters on either side are going to be able to ask detailed questions of a candidate over the phone. This lack of understanding on the part of recruiters can lead to wasted time and effort on a candidate's part, as they can get called in for an interview *for a position they're not even qualified to hold.* That is tremendously irritating to candidates, and I speak from long experience on this.
Again, no offense taken at all, I am here for entertainment and information. If someone gets offended over a forum posting, they have larger issues, especially given how information can be taken the wrong way given the informality of forum posting.
I agree, many recruiters have no idea what they are doing, they cannot be subject matter experts in all areas. So it is all the more ridiculous to suggest they are going to some to work at nine and only look at the top few emails and that is it; which is the thread subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna Meowt
In some cases, it's clear that a recruiter didn't actually read the resume he or she is calling about, but rather that they simply did a keyword text search. If a candidate writes on their resume that they "performed accounting functions on proprietary corporate software running on an AS/400 back end," then why on earth would a recruiter come calling with a job for an AS/400 programmer? I'll tell you why, Boxus. It's because the recruiter was lazy and clueless. It's also because the recruiter didn't understand the position they were trying to fill and simply called every applicant who returned hits during some simple keyword searches. "Hey, this guy's resume says AS/400 in three places. I bet he'll be a great fit for that project lead position we're trying to fill over at XYZ Corp."
I do not disagree at all, I led the charge to redo the hiring process in my company, basically meaning I removed a lot of HR's role in the process (I am in the financial industry). Now department managers have a greater role in the hiring process. But this still is off the thread subject about when to submit an application; it does not matter, many recruiters are not even looking at applications every day, they are doing other things; college career events, interviews, outreach, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna Meowt
In other cases, it's obvious that the recruiter isn't paying attention to the details of the position they're trying to fill, and I'll give you a personal example. About 15 years ago, I was contacted by two different outside agencies, each trying to fill the same Federal contract slot. The first recruiter insisted that I needed to have at least five years' experience with a specific version of a specific software package. The problem with that is that the version in question hadn't even been released yet. I tried to get some sort of clarification from the recruiter, but he insisted -- five years of experience with the nonexistent version or else he couldn't possibly schedule me for an interview. The second recruiter had her head on straight and understood what was going on. She correctly understood that the client sought candidates with at least five years of experience with *any* version of the software package, but that the as-yet unreleased version would be the one used during the course of the project. Since recruiter #2 understood what she was looking for and because she had a clue, she didn't waste anyone's time. She got me in for an interview that same week, and I got the job.
I agree, many times a person has been hired and the actual job is not even like the job description, so the poor new employee gets hit with a "not the right fit" dismissal not due to his fault, but the company not having an accurate process from start to finish. If the employee is lucky, they will place them in a better fit position if opened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna Meowt
Here's the key takeaway from that, Boxus. The first recruiter was clueless and lazy. And he's not alone; I've spoken to plenty just like him. I'm no longer in the job market, as I plan to retire from my current position within the next 10 years, but I can show you half a dozen e-mails in my inbox *just this week* from recruiters just as clueless as the one I just told you about.
While yes, many are clueless, many of them are not. My first recruiter was not clueless and worked closely with companies on matching their needs with potential candidates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna Meowt
It sounds to me that you're an internal recruiter, and you may very well do something different. However, my continuing experience with outside/agency recruiters is that they spend a minimum of time and effort actually trying to ensure a good match between openings and candidates. If you're a match for an opening they're actively trying to fill and if you're the first one an outside agency bork sees, then you're the first one he's going to call. I'm sure you know this, but I think it needs to be said here -- a lot of job openings are posted by *agencies,* not necessarily by the companies or organizations doing the hiring.
No, I am not an internal recruiter, I am a department manager; but I know a lot about the process and even organized the way my company does it process now (ideas borrowed from more recruitment efficient companies of course); I do have the final say on who gets hired right under the VP who is the final hiring authority. I do conduct interviews and sit on hiring panels, as well as approval job descriptions and inputs for recruiters to use when they are out looking for candidates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna Meowt
Try this experiment, Boxus. Since you're apparently a recruiter, why don't you find a recent agency job posting. Look anywhere you please; online, newspapers, agency websites. Spend a half-hour ginning up a fake resume and send the agency bork a cover e-mail and the resume at 7 AM. Then see if the bork replies to you (either by email or phone) by noon. I think you'll see what I'm talking about.
Is the hypothesis that the recruiter will make contact right away? What is the null hypothesis? What if I email at noon, will the recruiter not contact in a few hours?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna Meowt
Again, it sounds like you're an inside recruiter and that you don't have much/any experience with agency recruiting. Agency recruiting does, in fact, work *just like that.*
Again, I am not a recruiter. I also did not get them impression the OP was talking about outside recruiting as the OP mentioned applying to specific positions, and the OP has not given any clarification in response to my posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna Meowt
But more to the point, we're not so much talking about the "recruitment process" as much as we're talking about getting the initial call. That's what the OP was talking about. Other things, like dressing for the interview, hardcopies of resumes, providing references, background checks, etc. weren't really what he was asking about AFAICS.
I was actually talking about submitting the application at nine; totally ridiculous idea. Matter of fact, my wife's first job after college was from an application she submitted early in the evening, later on around 10pm she had an email asking if she could come in the next day at noon for an interview, she obtained the position, the previous employee walked out without warning.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
