Has the recruiting process become too drawn out? (employer, job, companies)
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.
So how should the process go? What is an acceptable, non-drawn out process?
It is easy to criticize something...so how about some suggestions on what could make it better.
Serious question.
Don't require the candidate to intervew with more than 8-10 different people. No more than 2 on-site interviews and 2 phone interviews. Each on-site interview to be no more than 4 hours in length. Try to have only 1 on-site interview but a 2nd can be needed in some cases.
Be flexible with timing of interviews (length and time of day) for folks that are currently working - as it is difficult for them to take time-off from their current job.
Perhaps actually focus on whether the person can do the job rather than play hack psychological profiler and turn hiring into a BSing contest and a high school popularity contest.
Perhaps actually focus on whether the person can do the job rather than play hack psychological profiler and turn hiring into a BSing contest and a high school popularity contest.
Agreed.
One phone interview, one on-site interview should be enough (for most jobs) to determine who is going to be hired.
A long, drawn out interview process is especially annoying for applicants that are currently employed. They need time off from their current job for each interview. This could be 3-4 days off (or partial days off) just to interview for ONE other position, if they are a finalist.
If they don't get hired, they'll need to start the interview process over at a new company. This could require ANOTHER 3-4 days off work to interview for the next company. If they don't get picked, they just might need to restart the job search in the following calendar year because they ran out of vacation time on all the interviews. Never mind the excuses for last minute time-off requests from their current employer, which could jeopardize their current job.
That's why I always believed that the only way to get a job while employed is to have a strong network and not have to go through a normal screening process. And i would hope no one is taking multiple days off to go on interviews because it would start to look suspicious.
I think instead of pseudo babble questions like, "What animal would you be if you were a jungle animal" stupid type interview questions they should ASK YOU TO DEMONSTRATE WHAT YOU KNOW and can you do it?
For example, a company wants to hire a customer service agent. Have this person answer questions and do a practical 'test' of how he or she would handle the following:
1. A customer calls up and want you to send him free parts. This is against company policy. How do you handle it and placate the customer at the same time?
2. An irate customer is on the other line. He demands to speaks to your supervisor and is swearing and screaming. How would you deal with it?
And so on. Don't ask asinine questions or chat about the HR person's kids.
If more interviewers KNEW about the jobs they were trying to fill, it would make life easier for all. Less roadblocks.
if you were my employee, i'd fire you. as the boss i would want the best employee. discarding 200 resumes for something as meaningless as not including a cover letter would not fly with me. the predictable silly leap of logic of "well, if they didn't include a cover letter then they can't follow directions" would make me question your intelligence even further and solidify the faith i had in my decision to terminate.
Eliminating resumes based on lack of cover letters makes perfect sense for certain positions. If filling a marketing or advertising position, I'd toss any resumes that didn't have cover letters. The cover letter is an opportunity to show their marketing strengths. The same applies to any position that requires excellent communication skills. Applicants for certain positions should be smart enough to know when a cover letter will be used to evaluate their talents and skills.
Eliminating resumes based on lack of cover letters makes perfect sense for certain positions. If filling a marketing or advertising position, I'd toss any resumes that didn't have cover letters. The cover letter is an opportunity to show their marketing strengths. The same applies to any position that requires excellent communication skills. Applicants for certain positions should be smart enough to know when a cover letter will be used to evaluate their talents and skills.
Most people feel that covers letters are not read at all which is why they don't submit them.
Most people feel that covers letters are not read at all which is why they don't submit them.
I believe you are grossly overstating fact when you say "most" feel so. Since you've never been an employer you can't speak for them and I can tell you from much experience in the field that cover letters are, and for all the reasons already stated in this thread, very important. I hope your job search is going well and that you will start to take the generally good advice offered on this forum.
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.
