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.
I know of one company that ask the question if you know anybody or if your related to anybody that works for their company. Suposedly this is for a recomendation. I do think that many times it is the primary reason that people are hired. It is very suspicious that the most 'qualified' applicants are always the best friend or son or daughter of another senior employee.
We ask this same question, but for an entirely different reason. We won't hire family members who will be in a supervisory relationship with one another, or who both have budgetary authority and can countersign invoices.
If anything, being a family member is a strike against you.
A question I would like to pose to certain people is, "How is all of that anger working out for you?"
When your core beliefs are that companies are evil, hiring managers are sociopaths or psychopaths, that in order to get ahead you have to be a corporate slave and kiss behinds, that you're just a victim, it comes across during interviews.
I know some of you don't believe that, but the seasoned among us know how to look for tells. We know which questions to ask and if we push a hot button, the right words may be coming out of your mouth, but your face and body language will be saying something else. As clever as you think you are, you cannot hide the truth about how you truly feel. And we hate people who try to save themselves or be hired by butt kissing.
This is the kind of toxic thinking no hiring manager will ever say yes to, unless they're so green, they don't recognize it.
So again, it's not that we know ahead of time who we want to hire, but we're positive about who we're not going to hire.
Hiring managers really do not know who they want beforehand.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1
The problem some of you are having is, they know what they don't want.
If you can figure out why they don't want you, and change that, it will end your problem of not being hired.
I disagree.
Hiring managers don't know what they do OR don't want. Think about it. How many stories do we hear about candidates getting overlooked for someone else that seemingly has something that puts them above you, only for that person to wash out in a few months because they lacked all of the other critical aspects, things that should have been clearly identified during the process but were ignored because the person had a great smile or were cute or some other stupid reason?
The company I just left, initially chose a different applicant over me. At the time I had over 9 years experience with the tool I'd be working with and had helped 4 separate companies in the same vertical market do the same thing this company was trying to do.
The other person? He worked in the vertical for two years, had two years experience with the tool. They hired him specifically because he worked in the vertical. That's it. There was an assumption that vertical experience made him better - despite the fact that this is an IT position where the vertical means very little.
Later, another guy left and they scrambled to hire me. I was put in the lowest position, lowest salary (still higher than my asking, so I didn't complain), and this nut they hired was trying to tell me what to do as if he was my boss.
He ended up leaving because he didn't like home prices in the state. Seriously. That was his main reason. He didn't care about the company, and left a huge mess behind because he didn't understand how the tool needed to be managed.
When I took over his position, not only did I get stuff back to working order, but we closed more projects successfully than all of the other development units, and the stability of the tool was where it needed to be. All because I had extensive knowledge on how to do it properly. But the hiring team didn't bother prioritizing that. I specifically called this out to HR on my way out; that their hiring decision process and what type of person they prioritize was not in the company's interest. They agreed, in the middle of trying to retain me. (For reference, I left because the company was making increasingly poor decisions that were in conflict with my morals.)
Hiring teams will say "we want a self starter and someone with initiative and someone who's a team player and someone who can work Agile and someone who can handle stressful situations" - I mean all of those are buzzwords. That's not what they really want, they're just regurgitating what they've heard others say when hiring. What they REALLY want, is someone who has already done what they want to do now. That's it. Problem is, you DON'T want someone who has done exactly the same thing; you want someone who understands how to do it specific to the new company's individual needs and requirements. I would not want a Tesla technician to work at a Ford plant just because they worked cars. It's not the same. I WOULD want a Tesla project manager to work Ford project management, because project management is a concept that doesn't care what type of project is being done; but doing it as part of vehicle design and deployment is a benefit to another vehicle company. Additionally, that project manager might bring great ideas on how to improve Ford deployment and design.
Hiring teams will say "we don't want someone who's a lone wolf, we don't want someone who requires a lot of training, we don't want someone remote..." - all BS. What they shouldn't want, is someone who simply is not there to improve the company. That's it. How that person improves the company should be an open door, but if they're not there for the COMPANY's best interest, they don't belong there. But no hiring team is that clear minded about it. It doesn't matter if that person is 2,000 miles away. If they can add value and improve the company with the position, let them.
hiring managers usually don't know who they are going to hire. but there are many people who are just bad interviewers and bad interviewees. this results in many people getting hired simply because they have good "rapport" and the hiring manager feels a good connection. this is not the best way to hire but it's probably the most common way to hire.
however, i don't really know of any alternate ways. should companies hire blindly (solely based on resume + writing samples + test of some sort)?
there is a team dynamic that can be important (usually a team suffers if there is one bad apple (jerk) that nobody gets along with).
I've been part of the interview process at two different jobs, and I can tell you that I didn't know whom we were going to hire beforehand. If you put your best foot forward with your resume, you're going to get an interview. That's when the real process of selection begins. Someone can sound great on paper, but what's their personality like? Can they handle the stress of the job? Do they have the proper skills? Will they be good team players? None of that is something you can glean from a resume. And even after the interviews were done, there were sometimes differences of opinion on which was the best person for the job.
Sounds like you're frustrated with your job search. I feel for you. I've been there. But I can assure you that not all companies are underhanded. I think most really do want to hire the best person for the job. All you can do is keep trying.
Why beat around the bush?? Just say there will be no interviews, we already have our candidate
Oh there is some "law" some damn "rule" requiring that jobs be posted and interviews be done (bull**** formalities) even if they already have the candidate they want for the position.
What the purpose of laws or rules when companies essentially have free reign to do essentially do WHATEVER they want to do anyways and never face any type of punishment. Where is the policing of these out on control unscrupulous corporations?
We ask this same question, but for an entirely different reason. We won't hire family members who will be in a supervisory relationship with one another, or who both have budgetary authority and can countersign invoices.
If anything, being a family member is a strike against you.
But there are companies that do hire relatives. Yes, some companies do not. But many have sibilings and friends running around all over.
Unions have no power today. Companies pretty much do what they want - as long as they do not break the law or get caught.
As comapnies mature and and families mature there are more people that they want on the payroll. I am not saying that it is always wrong - there are employees that do have gifted, smart, offspring and they do deserve a chance. But that is not always the case and I am sure that it would be hard to prove in a court of law.
Hiring managers really do not know who they want beforehand.
The problem some of you are having is, they know what they don't want.
If you can figure out why they don't want you, and change that, it will end your problem of not being hired.
It's not rocket science, and not everyone is having this problem.
This ^^^^^^. Of course there is a need to interview, companies don't just do it for kicks. They ARE looking to fill a position and this is the most logical way to do it.
What most people fail to realize is that the interview is not one sided. Sure, they are interviewing you, but you are also interviewing them. It should be an exchange of information that gives you some idea of if this is a company you want to work for as well as if they want you to be their employee. When I was doing interviews, I did not want a sheep sitting on the other side of the desk, I wanted an active participant who was also asking questions about the position and showing me they had drive and a real interest in THAT position.
I realize it is a grueling process, especially if you have been out of work for a while, but all you need is for that one company to say "Welcome aboard" to change things for the better. Good luck, the right job will come along if you just keep trying.
So what is your suggestion? Should I pull the two openings I have posted and whine because nobody is applying? How should I fill my positions?
According to W&E posters, you should hire three licensed and 20 unlicensed applicants for your two open positions, or else you're just wasting their time.
But in all seriousness, 20 unlicensed applied to a regulated position? And how are they not wasting their own time? You just can't win...
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.
Plus 1 Million:
