Regardless, about 1/3 of them fall in love with a specific job posting and lose a lot of time assuming their first choice will work out.
Everyone should treat the interviewing process like a numbers game. Apply to many companies. Don't get into a position where a single company decided to pass on you will destroy your finances or make it difficult to put food on the table. Don't become emotionally attached to companies before you've been hired.
The problem here is that as an applicant you're usually expected to show commitment, enthusiasm, passion for the work etc.
It's very hard to work yourself up about a job without actually caring about it. The underlying enormous asymetry of power between you and the employer means that what is strictly a numbers game for them will always have at least some emotional significance for you.
You don't have to show up with exaggerated, faked interested in the company or industry. In fact, it can come off as very fake if a candidate shows up and pretends they're supernaturally excited to work in our industry that they just learned about 2 days prior.
However, you can't expect to show up to a job interview and ooze disinterest and boredom and still be considered for the job.
Don't think of it as getting excited to work for a company. Think about it as getting to know your potential future coworkers. If you need to become emotionally invested in a company before applying, I'd strongly recommend that you work on breaking that habit before it makes your job search artificially difficult.
Often the interview process is based on an expectation that, for example, you will exaggerate your previous achievements. Every past project you describe has to sound amazing, your cv has to seem like a carefully thought out career path that will culminate in the final fulfillment of some great life goal.
You can't just say that you took some job for the money or just to be in the same town as your girlfriend etc., you have to pretend it was some significant step on a path. Otherwise you sound like you're unmotivated, not serious about your career etc.
My resume is, if you just look at it, not a "great" one. But it's good enough to get in the door, and then it's not really relevant anymore because we're then having a conversation about how I can bring value to the organization.
I wouldn't rush to dismiss a company just because they let the HR person spruce up the job description with some boilerplate. You really need to talk to the team you'll be working with and the future manager you'll be working under.
Unfortunately, it's just not possible to tell what a job will be like by reading a job description. You have to talk to the teams.
> Unfortunately, it's just not possible to tell what a job will be like by reading a job description.
While I agree completely, isn't this wrong though? Shouldn't a job description be well written? Isn't "sprucing up" just code for false advertising?
I for one have seen countless job descriptions that were a ridiculous exaggeration of the kind of work that you would actually have done. It's important to note that it always want one way: making the job sound a lot more interesting than it was and demanding a lot more skill than was actually needed. Nobody went overboard with downplaying things.
I've sat on both sides of the table, and know that isn't accurate. If it was accurate, everybody would be working for minimum wage.
BTW, if you're unemployed because of the pandemic, the best use of your time is to level up your skills so you'll be in a stronger position once it's over.
A lot of people actually are working for (close to) minimum wage.
> BTW, if you're unemployed because of the pandemic, the best use of your time is to level up your skills
I am not, but your recommendation only highlights the inequality I was referring to. In your conception the entire burden is placed on individuals. Companies seem to have no responsibility to train people at all, that's smth you have to do on your own time for free.
2.1% of workers work for minimum wage.
> Companies seem to have no responsibility to train people at all,
They don't. Neither do people owe them fealty.
> that's smth you have to do on your own time for free.
Consider a company that decides to train you for 4 years while paying you. Then, you decide to leave and take a better offer elsewhere. A company cannot make you stay. Taking that on would be very risky and very expensive for any company.
"Companies" that do this tend to force you to work for them so many years afterwards, like the military.
I'm pretty sure that's the federal minimum wage. Many states have a higher bar [1]. Many people working for 10 bucks an hour will still be earning minimum wage in their respective state.
If you take a look at the nation-wide wage distribution, you'll see things don't look that good. At the 50'th percentile the income for a family with 2.56 people is 57k, before tax etc.
> They don't.
Maybe they should. In the end they're benefiting from all the education that you as an individual pay for (or that is state-supported) and from all of the extra training you're supposed to do on the side without remuneration.
> Neither do people owe them fealty.
On the other hand there's no reason why people should ever owe fealty to a corporation. Societies are (de jure and should be de facto) centered on human individuals, not on various legal fictions. Corporations have no natural rights and they are not people (despite what the US supreme court might say) - no need for a human being to owe them anything.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_Sta...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...
So are you, as you get paid more for the extra value the education imparted to you.
> no need for a human being to owe them anything.
You don't owe corporations anything, unless you made a deal with them and owe them your side of the deal. And vice versa. That's how free markets work.
Why should work relations be based on the "free market"? Why should we consider the market the core institution of a society, the concept underlying any form of relationship?
"Free" markets the way libertarians tend to imagine them do not exist, and for very good reason - they would lead to a hasty collapse of society. You can't for example sell yourself into slavery, you can't be hired to work more than a certain number of hours per week, or if you're younger than a certain age etc. There are countless restrictions on what a contractual relationship can look like between a worker and a corporation - things are definitely not "free".
I don't know where your information is coming from, but it isn't libertarianism. Under libertarianism, your rights are inalienable, and supersede contractual rights. Hence, you cannot sell yourself into slavery, because your right to liberty supersedes any contract. You can agree to work more than X hours per week, but you cannot be forced to stick to that agreement. Libertarianism only applies to legally consenting adults. Others (like children) have additional legal rights, such as not being bound by contracts.
There are many different meanings of "free". Common misunderstandings of libertarianism come from conflating different meanings of "free". The free in free markets generally means free from force or fraud.
As for "hasty collapse", the US was a reasonable approximation to a free market in its first century, excluding the slave south, and went from subsistence farming to superpower. This also saw the greatest mass rise from poverty to wealth the world has ever seen.
As for other countries, the more they embraced free markets, the more they prospered.
This seems to be debated both in popular libertarian forums [1] and among academics [2]. I haven't read source [2] in detail, but at a quick glance I can offer the following quote (p. 41):
"At the extreme right would be the libertarian philosophy I shall defend which maintains that everything should be legally alienable or commodifiable."
Robert Nozick himself seems to support the idea of voluntary slavery [3]:
"Most controversially, and unlike Locke and Kant, Nozick argued that consistent application of self-ownership and non-aggression principle[10] would allow and regard as valid consensual or non-coercive enslavement contracts between adults. He rejected the notion of inalienable rights advanced by Locke and most contemporary capitalist-oriented libertarian academics, writing in Anarchy, State, and Utopia that the typical notion of a "free system" would allow adults to voluntarily enter into non-coercive slave contracts."
> Libertarianism only applies to legally consenting adults. Others (like children) have additional legal rights, such as not being bound by contracts.
Again, it seems that leading libertarian theorists would disagree. Take Murray Rothbard for one [4]:
"In Rothbard's view of parenthood, "the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights". Thus, Rothbard stated that parents should have the legal right to let any infant die by starvation and should be free to engage in other forms of child neglect. However, according to Rothbard, "the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children". In a fully libertarian society, he wrote, "the existence of a free baby market will bring such 'neglect' down to a minimum"."
> the US was a reasonable approximation to a free market in its first century [...] This also saw the greatest mass rise from poverty to wealth the world has ever seen.
I'm sure the American indians, the original inhabitants of the continent, would not exactly agree that the outcomes of that century were so great. Also, to my knowledge, the award for greatest rise from poverty would go to the China of recent decades (not a particularly nice place).
> excluding the slave south
You really shouldn't.
> and went from subsistence farming to superpower
Not in its first century. That happened a bit later, once the US was a far more centralized entity with a far stronger federal government (again, I don't think becoming a superpower is a good thing or a good argument for free markets).
> As for other countries, the more they embraced free markets, the more they prospered.
Do you have any arguments or examples for this?
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLibertarians/comments/7u7r2m/am_...
[2] https://cdn.mises.org/17_2_3.pdf
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nozick#Political_philos...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard#Children's_rig...
I'm very lucky in that my current job hits on most of my skills as well as many of my non-work interests, and that's not a job I'd have to fake anything for, but it's not as if every startup coming down the pike is the greatest thing since sliced bread. This is a skill, and it is one that you can learn to be good at.
That enthusiasm is just the polite enthusiasm of a sales call. It may require a few minutes of reading and thinking (because tbh I also see a lot of folks who have no idea what a company does when they go in to interview), but it is almost always either a baseline "do they get what we do here?" check (which is what you can learn and practice for) or it is a cult you should avoid.
If you have a communication line open with someone for some sort of transactional activity, you do not just drop off into oblivion. Ever. It's rude and disrespectful, full stop.
Yes, I agree that the interview process can be a numbers game: candidates should apply to many opportunities that fit their skills, and expect no interest from nearly all of them.
But if a candidate has received a response, and there's any kind of open dialog, no matter how minimal, then out of a sense of basic civility and respect, they deserve a reply, even if it's just a canned one-liner rejection.
That's the only decent thing to do. Anything else is disrespectful.
Regardless of how the communication is flowing (or not), candidates shouldn't perform their job search as a serial process. Parallelize as much as possible and don't stop searching until you've been given a start date somewhere.
THAT!! Everyone should try and get as many interviews as possible. And a friendly and weird suggestion is this.. record your call (YOUR voice) and replay the mp3 later. And listen to what you said. 99% of the people never wonder what they said, never have mock interviews with a friend/colleague. You hear them on a call with a recruiter, it is a trainwreck, and you ask them and they think it was brilliant.
Feedback, feedback, feedback!
Maybe you're the one that is being pretty insensitive.
It's a numbers game for the candidate, too, as they often apply for dozens of jobs simultaneously. Recruiters also aren't doing it for fun, they're on commission. If they don't make a placement, they don't put food on the table for their families.
Ghosting is impolite, but people do it all the time, including to their dates, friends, etc. The best thing to do is don't take it personally and move on.
Well, they should. If you don't understand this reply, I guess you are applying for a junior role? Looking at jobs as if the hot girl you met at a bar doesn't call you back, isn't exactly a great strategy. And as with girls, being obsessive about employers pretty much has similar consequences. You lower your value, the chances of getting in and your relationship with them will become one-sided, fester and die, unless you change.
Employers are there to pay you, because you need money. They need you, because you are doing a great a job and if they don't call you back, who gives a f*? You've got other options. Actually the more I think about it, the more I like the relationship analogy, even though incentives and goals usually are different, unless you've come to employ a gold digger.
And guess what, hot girls have to sift through so many applicants, you really can't fault them for not notifying every poor soul who tried, that they are not interested.
I agree employment is like a relationship. And good communication is essential in a good relationship. I'm not interested in a girl that browses for relationships as if she was on a meat market, same with employers. It has to 'click'. And if it does it's very unfair not to get feedback either way.
Having said that I've rarely been ghosted. I've always got decent feedback when I didn't get a job, including on what went 'wrong' and how to improve my chances. That information is very valuable. In most cases it just didn't 'click' and I didn't want the job anyway.
I also rejected a job offer once because I didn't like the work atmosphere there (I asked to see the workplace after the interview). The HR guy was absolutely livid :D I don't get that, why would he want me in a job where I'm unhappy? I always ask to see the place so I can get an idea of where I'll be spending a large part of my life. Money isn't the only thing I care about.
The one interview that really stood out, where I was amazed at the lively atmosphere, it was with the company I still work for 17 years on. It was a crappy callcenter job I started at but when I walked in there I could see the people were happy and had time to have fun as well as work.
That seems like a life organizational issue based on the amount of job hunt stress you're managing. Recruiters don't care about any of that.
For "jobs" in general, the situation might be slightly different. If we're confining ourselves to the tech world... talk to multiple recruiters. They owe you nothing, and you owe them nothing (until/unless a contract is signed).
They're not selling "hopes and dreams". They're selling the potential to go work for someone where they take a cut of your earnings. That's it.
Don't put your 'hopes and dreams' in the hands of anyone but yourself.
Pretending the recruiter takes "a cut" of your salary creates an unnecessarily adversarial tone.
That's how it looks from an accounting point of view but it is not how it works in reality. Employers have no interest in what your take-home pay is, they only are interested in what it costs to hire you.
Those costs are compared with what value you provide to the company. The (value - cost)/cost is the "opportunity cost", and market forces tend to push this to be around 1.15, or 15%.
The cut paid to the recruiter, as well as benefits, so-called "employer contributions" to social security, etc., all come out of your take-home pay one way or another.
> each of the people you are recruiting they have a lot on the line whether it is leaving a bad job or putting food on the table for their family or whatever else...
isn't helpful, because there are a lot of reasons to change jobs which don't involve having a lot on the line. Having a vague interest in changing fields, wanting to move from a stagnating career, stability, salary, moving to a nicer place, what have you.
It would be interesting to see some numbers on this. Unfortunately I don't expect it's the sort of information anyone is collecting, mostly because I wouldn't expect job seekers to volunteer it.
This is pretty insensitive to the hopes and dreams you are selling to candidates when they work with you.
It might be a numbers game for you, but to each of the people you are recruiting they have a lot on the line whether it is leaving a bad job or putting food on the table for their family or whatever else...
edit: I'm not saying you don't care - just that it seems like an organizational issue based on the amount of deals you are managing - and the job applicants don't care about any of that.