Automated Job Rejection: Or, Cutting One's Own Throat As An Employer

[Maximus]

It does strike me that maybe not using bad software may be the way to go.

The problem isn't the software, but the HR departments wielding it.

The problem may be that decent software would make HR redundant.

[MadImmortalMan]

Lawyers will make sure HR is never redundant. 

It's just that HR isn't good for hiring skilled positions anyway. They don't know the fields, so they can only scan for buzzwords. If the applicant uses a different name for the same thing in their skills list, they miss the match because they don't know better. They can't ask any questions that show the applicant knows what the hell they're talking about because they don't know the stuff themselves. So they are limited to generalities, personality tests and other nonsense that has nothing to do with the job.

[garbon]

Lawyers will make sure HR is never redundant. 

It's just that HR isn't good for hiring skilled positions anyway. They don't know the fields, so they can only scan for buzzwords. If the applicant uses a different name for the same thing in their skills list, they miss the match because they don't know better. They can't ask any questions that show the applicant knows what the hell they're talking about because they don't know the stuff themselves. So they are limited to generalities, personality tests and other nonsense that has nothing to do with the job.

Yeah HR seems largely to function as the gatekeepers of - can you act like a professional?

[Iormlund]

It does strike me that maybe not using bad software may be the way to go.

Good software costs money though. And requires good customer input. Trust me when I say both are scarce.

[Caliga]

I like when companies demand ten years' experience writing code in a language that was invented three years ago.

You would be surprised how often that happens (or maybe you wouldn't). 

[Caliga]

I've never used an automated system, and the HR people that do use them always seem to demand things of the candidates that I don't care about as the person's future boss and ignore (or don't understand) the things I want. Luckily, the companies I've worked for so far have not had a problem with me doing my own recruiting.

I try to do it myself as often as possible too.  In fact today I convinced our acting CIO to give me a position description to rewrite which I intend to circulate on my own 'network'.  That of course won't stop me from mentioning the search to recruiters which means lots of free lunches, though.

[Caliga]

Lawyers will make sure HR is never redundant. 

It's just that HR isn't good for hiring skilled positions anyway. They don't know the fields, so they can only scan for buzzwords. If the applicant uses a different name for the same thing in their skills list, they miss the match because they don't know better. They can't ask any questions that show the applicant knows what the hell they're talking about because they don't know the stuff themselves. So they are limited to generalities, personality tests and other nonsense that has nothing to do with the job.

This is why I tell HR:  DO NOT ATTEMPT TO SCREEN CANDIDATES OUT FOR ME.  SEND ME THE RESUME OF *EVERY* PERSON WHO APPLIES.  I say it in all caps too... gets the point across.

[Caliga]

It does strike me that maybe not using bad software may be the way to go.

Yep, there's a huge amount of potential for improvement in job sites/databases/etc that could benefit both employers and applicants. It's taking its sweet time being realized.

HRIS-related shit is never high priority because it's not (directly) viewed as helping to generate additional revenue.

[Scipio]

HR is for documenting employee fuckups, and nothing else.

[Monoriu]

If they can leave a position unfilled for a year, they don't really need that position.  If they really want it, they will be willing to compromise.  Sometimes I feel the hiring isn't sincere.  They just want to say to someone within the organisation that they are hiring.  It could be "we can't do this until we hire someone, but since we haven't been able to hire someone we can't do what you want us to do" or "we are trying to hire someone to share the work, but since nobody has turned up you guys need to put in more hours". 

[DontSayBanana]

If they can leave a position unfilled for a year, they don't really need that position.  If they really want it, they will be willing to compromise.  Sometimes I feel the hiring isn't sincere.  They just want to say to someone within the organisation that they are hiring.  It could be "we can't do this until we hire someone, but since we haven't been able to hire someone we can't do what you want us to do" or "we are trying to hire someone to share the work, but since nobody has turned up you guys need to put in more hours". 

Not always the case.  A lot of "unfilled positions" have their responsibilities shifted to someone else on a pro tem basis- which can work out okay, but in a skilled position in a larger company, that might end up in a situation where it's damaging, but not disastrous, to the employer.

[Syt]

My favorite ad recently was for a trainee position (i.e. fresh graduates): "Looking for finance graduates with master's degree and at least five years experience in an accounting department".

[HisMajestyBOB]

My favorite ad recently was for a trainee position (i.e. fresh graduates): "Looking for finance graduates with master's degree and at least five years experience in an accounting department".

"Notice: This is an unpaid internship position."

[HVC]

My favorite ad recently was for a trainee position (i.e. fresh graduates): "Looking for finance graduates with master's degree and at least five years experience in an accounting department".

i also like he jobs offering almost nothing for positions that require designations or years of experience. Good luck with that.

[dps]

But some fixes are easier.

Here's one idea--quit taking applications on-line and go back to having job seekers apply in person. 

That sounds like an inefficient process.

From the employer's POV, it's good to know that the job applicant was actually the on who filled out the application, which you can only be sure about if they are applying in person.  During the time I was making hiring decisions, I saw plenty of cases in which the applicants mother/brother/girlfriend/buddy/wiife filled out the application for them because the applicant couldn't or wouldn't.  None of those people even got an interview.  I would have wasted a lot of time interviewing them if we had taken the applications on-line, because I wouldn't have known that the applicant was too do-less to even actually bother to apply.