Centralized HR is for managing benefits and setting policies. They never help with the hiring process, in my experience.
One of the engineering managers I had been working with as a consultant had tried to recruit me more than once, so I decided to accept. But shortly after a mandatory HR screening call, I got an apologetic rejection email from the engineering manager.
I'm from a pretty small town, low income family. Edit/ I also did my Computer Science degree at a small university that was a community college when I started my degree. /Edit. Making my way in the world often feels like being a small fish in a vast ocean. People from wealthier families, or who have built-in connections from growing up in the big cities or going to prestigious universities don't really understand what an advantage their networks are.
I think this has been a big source of my grief so far. I keep winding up in heavily political companies.
Thank you for the advice. Networking is definitely something I intend to take more seriously. It's become much more clear to me how important it is as my career progresses.
When people say "I'm not political" they're really just confessing to low social status and acumen. I personally wish things were different, but as you note they're not. So one may as well accept reality and play the game as best as one can. One can have a very successful career as a follower if one recognizes the traits of good leaders and the traits that good leaders are looking for.
Right. Politics is a tool often used to keep people with low social status where they are.
Much like gossip, politics is pack violence and order by other means, and is usable by people who have less physical power but more social influence. If you don't have either physical and social power, then you're dismissed as not a threat and ripe to be stepped-on. Gossip is often a political attack technique to take-down a physically-strong leader.
I was in a similar situation to you and through work I've developed a pretty good network of former colleagues. After about 10 years, it my network ended up stretching so far that I had contacts at basically every major company my city.
I mean, very few of my former colleagues ended up in the upper echelons of businesses, but almost all of them are in senior IC roles for which a recommendation carries a lot of weight, especially for an opening on their own team.
Be good at what you do, genuinely help people, without expecting or calculating whether it'll be beneficial to you, stay close with those who help you, and who you helped.
Eventually, you'll find your way into a good cluster. Some start in the middle of it, we started in the periphery. Accrue good faith and trust and it will only keep growing. It's non linear. Something something preferential attachment.
I have also had bad luck with jobs so far. Everywhere I go, people above me seem more inclined to try and keep me where I am than help me improve and grow. I always have very good relationships with my teammates though, so I know I'm doing something right.
I don't think I was supposed to know the name of the internal candidate, but having friends who worked for the uni, I knew the name and, well, the internal candidate would certainly have had a better culture fit.
I did exactly this, though I'm pretty sure I'm not your boss.
As a side note, HR's insistence on doing the initial resume review and phone screens usually skews the entire recruitment process. I've had situations where HR gave me 20 resumes and didn't even look at the rest.
I read all of them, even the greyed out ones, until I'd read enough to trust that the HR team's filter was well-calibrated, and I also let the HR team know when they got it right/wrong so they could improve their filtering process.
Overall it worked great but I understand that such functional HR teams are the exception, not the rule.
Edit: My apologies everyone. I actually read this as "cover letter" instead of CV.
I agree a resume (as noted below) should be required, but CV (academic style) is probably a US term not applicable here.
Sorry!
edit: saw another response which said a cv was a resume, this is correct. In the UK we use Curriculum Vitae (CV) instead of resume. They are the same thing. Not sure what you may have thought a CV was, however I would be interested to know.
On the same team there were a couple people who came from non-coding backgrounds like Unix systems administration and production support, they loved the job and had been at the company for many years. Why weren't we looking for more of those people? My boss told me that HR was judged by the qualifications of the candidates they allow to proceed in the process. No one would ask questions if you raised the hiring bar, or you might even get kudos. This made no sense to me as that would be like an engineer who only did work one day per month, not taking any chances on touching systems or code that had any chance of introducing a bug.
This was my first job out of school and it taught me that in these large Fortune 100 companies, through no malice at all, silos can create policies that make complete sense to them that don't actually accomplish anything.
If you look at FB job reqs in prod network engineering (network in title, infrastructure is area of work), the qualifications should be reasonable. This covers most roles that are not pure SWE or rack and stack (SWE and "deployment and support" cover those roles).
~3-4 years ago a director shared a req and asked that we pass it on to our friends / anyone that might be interested. Some of us asked why specific items were in the req since they didn't reflect the team or our work. We also noted how it reinforced bias (women tend not to apply if they do not meet _all_ quals. men tend to apply if they meet _any_ quals).
Response was "good point, we'll remove them" and our reqs got a lot shorter and less exclusionary.
You might note that we tend to not have any education requirements. At one point the req listed university degrees. This was funny because we had a bimodal distribution of uni drop-out (maybe no high school diploma) on one side and MS or Ph.D on the other.
e.g. zero education requirements section in job reqs for my team: https://www.facebook.com/careers/v2/jobs/468265564478223/
It took one manager months to get “Windows NT” removed from the description for a network position.
That means it's too big and time to cut full time employees and hire contractors.
If HR are in charge of hiring for technical positions, the company has deep issues...
It depends on the HR department. Some are under pressure to "add value" to hiring, so they insist on rewriting job reqs and screening all applicants. At a Fortune 50 company I worked at, my boss got in trouble because he sweet-talked someone in HR to print out all the resumes they rejected and secretly deliver them to him. He resorted to this after he informally recruited a new hire, wrote a job description specifically targeted at them, and then, after waiting two weeks for their application to filter through the system, found out that HR round-filed it because they supposedly weren't qualified.
HR refused to collaborate with him on editing job descriptions, so every time he submitted one, he had to check every day until he found out what garbage they posted so he could go beg them to fix it. They would randomly add technologies and "change the wording" of desired qualifications (how do you "change the wording" of proper nouns and jargon from somebody else's field?) and they were especially fond of turning nice-to-haves into absolute requirements because we supposedly didn't have enough. My boss was convinced they were under pressure to filter out a target percentage of applicants, because he begged them to just pass all the resumes to him, and they refused, hence his cloak-and-dagger tactics to get his hands on them.