What's to be confused about?

They don't give a fuck - about you, or your time.

Why? Because they perceive (rightly or wrongly) that there's no business incentive for them to do so.

Either way... if they leave you dangling, or make you answer just a few silly questions too many, and/or sign up for (nearly) unlimited numbers of whiteboarding or hacker ranks sessions, or "take-home projects" they never (or at best only barely) look at, it's because... look, do you think these people have time to think about what they're doing, let alone how it affects the time and patience of those candidates they don't necessarily want to hire... or even, in some abstract sense, their long-term reputation as a company that makes at least some kind of effort to create a not entirely-unpleasant interview process?

Of course not. It's much easier to just throw shit at the wall -- or as it were, at the whiteboard -- and see what sticks.

So that's what they do.

But there is one: to save the precious time of valuable people. I think it's an interesting suggestion.

I, too, really like the idea, but I wonder if, in practice, it wouldn't work because companies don't introspect deeply enough to understand what makes them distinct? For instance, if what's remarkable about your company is that you have a great culture where people goof off a lot and have a lot of fun, and still manage to get a passable amount of work done, would anyone dare to self-identify that way?

Re: your example, I see it as my job to encourage them to communicate who they are loudly and proudly! There's pressure on both sides (job-seekers and employers) to check all of the boxes. It doesn't make sense to do that at all though.

The other issue is that companies may truly be trying to find the most intelligent (for whatever that word means) person as long as she or he isn't malignant- someone who will be successful in future endeavors after the one they are hiring for is finished. In that case they are just dragging a wide net and trying to get the biggest fish. This is all throw out the window, of course, when some of their screeners have ad-hoc and very personal criteria for rejection (two typos, or not being gender-inclusive, or whatever). Then the process becomes ipso facto a cultural screening process.

Some companies are pretty strict about their qualifications. For some, the qualifications are more like guidelines. But if the position is interesting, I'll take that chance.

Unreasonable expectations created by hyperspecialization and role blending as part of corporate restructuring, or as pushed by the investors/stakeholders that follows economic recessions.

The expansionary period that follows provide people opportunity to leave, providing more liquidity in the labor market.

So talent leaves for greener pastures and now you have a hiring manager who's direct report has left them with a gaping hole and finance dictates that you have 1:1 for this spot.

So you type of the list of roles and responsibilities and send your requisition to HR to help find candidates. Meanwhile you assign out duties to remaining team members because work must get done.

The search lingers because the hiring manager looking for the proverbial purple squirrel, meanwhile the team seems to be handling the workload with no measurable impact on quality.

This then just repeats itself over and over, at companies large and small.

This is only one use case, there are many, but I think one that plays a big part in the problem of job search and matching talent with opportunity.

Let's compare it to dating. A lot of people like dating apps where you can rifle through hundreds of options within minutes. But most people would agree that a matching process that is more personal and human leads to longer lasting relationships.

Despite how many people play the numbers game, there are tons of people who don't, myself included. (And I happen to mean that for both my personal and professional relationships.)

... get sued or prosecuted by the EEOC. There are reasons things are stated in a certain way and the net has to be cast wider than necessary. First fix the landscape of U.S. labor law, and then a discussion of efficiency and values can be productive

"Do exciting work that has real impact, learn a lot, and have fun doing it."

Do you know how many companies say that on their job descriptions?! All of them.

Here are some examples of being (mildly) divisive and using strong language:

- "We consider it a disqualifier if a candidate does not value our mission to grow and sustain local food systems" (Good Eggs)

- "All of our communications are out in the open, and we have a rule that you cannot send emails to a fellow Remixer and instead must communicate over Slack where everyone can see. (Emails are only used for people externally.)" (Remix)

- "We advocate that everyone leans towards releasing and reverting. It is better to revert small changes than to spend time perfecting code. While this might rub some people the wrong way, we believe that the best way to learn is by doing." (Amplitude)

All of these things will either resonate w/ an individual and make them really excited about applying/joining, or turn them off because it doesn't quite align w/ their personal values/preferences/goals.

I must say, this would give me pause. That kind of language tells me that they don't value testing, and likely don't value quality requirements capturing either.

So you still have to go through the same number of candidates until you can find a good one.

There are lots of things that would attract/repel a candidate from a company that aren't discriminatory. "At our current stage of growth, we value speed over reliability," "we measure employee productivity," "we work early/late," "people here do/don't wear suits," "we do/don't do code reviews," "we do/don't do Scrum," just to name a few.

- "You need to be based in <European country>, we don't do remote" -- applies from US/Pakistan/Russia, wants remote work. - "Make clear what attracts you in our business/industry" -- ignores any mention of industry, business or such. - "Don't repeat your CV in the cover letter" -- guess what? Cover letter is repetition of his/her CV...

I wish I was lying, but this is daily routine when hiring.

For the second example, because most engineers value honesty because a lack of complete transparency cost time/money or worst kills people. And frankly, most engineers like technology and could care less about the company and/or the industry. And that's why they are horrible at sales. And what your asking for is a kind of sales.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772

http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/10/news/companies/gm-recall-ign...

Btw, I'm not saying you shouldn't look for engineers that have people skills, just why your having a hard time finding them... :)

?? The problem is not employers casting a wide net, but everyone applying for the job.

For employers, it's casting a wide net and then struggling to filter out "noise" quickly. Employers will use pass on great engineers and interview not-so great ones (see parent comment). Instead of saying, "Work for us, we're the best!" why don't engineering teams say, "We prioritize speed over quality, are great for individual contributors, and prefer asynchronous comms over lots of meetings. Work for us if this sounds like you."

For job-seekers, the problem is applying to dozens to companies that you don't even want to work for (and just don't know it yet). If I value quality over speed, prefer working in teams rather than independently, and believe in-person meetings are incredibly valuable, then I would know not to even both applying to the company above.

And, in the enterprise, the elaborate rules for recruiters, created by too many layers of HR (process is the scar tissue of organizations), means that small, boutique recruiters that are more careful about fit can't even get in the door.

A large pile of crap resumes is the result.