I've heard many people, often project managers, mention 'fit' and filtering out assholes, but my definition of an asshole is one who's mean, uncaring, and arrogant. But I've never seen that kind of person in the 10 years I've worked in software development.

What do you define as and asshole, and do you run across many of them?

When you are a recruiter, you talk to all types. You probably have seen many in part because the recruiter filtered them out. And you are right, most people are not assholes. But if a toxic grade-A dip shit applies, it’s my job to make sure that person doesn’t get within 100km of the hiring team, or they will start questioning why I’m even around at all.

> my definition of an asshole is one who's mean, uncaring, and arrogant

By that definition, I've worked with three clear matches and four pretty good runner-ups over the past 20 years. The absolute worst one was not a dev, but a PM.

For obvious reasons I'm not stating even the time frames when I crossed paths with such characters.

> When I was a recruiter, mostly I wanted to make sure you could speak English well enough to hold a conversation, make sure you were interested enough to go through the process, and make sure you weren’t an asshole

that makes sense and I respect that. the problem is that it is a jerky thing for the recruiter to do. and as someone looking for a new job/gig one of my top filters is to avoid/eliminate jerks where I can.

it might feel paradoxical or counter-intuitive to the recruiter, but in trying to weed out jerks, they themselves can behave like a jerk. and thus we will weed you out. ;-)

Strong disagree. As a candidate I want to make sure everyone’s time is being used effectively, and I’m perfectly happy to offer up information that can be used to make sure it’s a good match. It’s not “jerky” to want to know a candidate can hold a conversation: it’s (in my opinion) eminently reasonable due diligence.

understood.

but I didnt say or imply that

what I was saying is that if you as a recruiter demonstrate that you disrespect my time -- important upfront when one is bombarded with hundreds of recruiters a month/week -- then that is jerky behavior. one's "reasons" don't matter, they are indistinguishable from "excuses". only actions and impacts. upfront folks ought to use their time efficiently. treating every random recruiter ping to the red carpet is a recipe for much time wasting and frustration. its more polite to nail down and filter out any showstoppers as upfront as you can. email is much faster and easier at doing that, and less prone to being gamed/abused by the recruiter as a bonus.

once an initial fit is determined, then yes doing a brief call can be nice. but as a candidate, I dont honestly care if the recruiter himself/herself is sane or pleasant to talk to on the phone. I do care much more about the job details, and about whether the hiring company likes me or not, upfront. Anything that is an obstacle to that should be minimized or routed around.

but in a sea of alternative uses of my time the recruiter is competing for my time, the talent candidate's time, just as much as the reverse, and arguably more so

CAVEATS: decades of real world experience, not theory. I'm also talking more about third-party recruiters not in-house. and when I say "recruiter" I dont mean like the CEO of the hiring company, or a senior tech leader -- those folks tend to be MUCH better uses of call time, plus they inherently signal a hiring company is interested in you. and yes you DO want to get a sense for whether those folks are sane and not-jerks -- they are potential bosses afterall -- and calls help with that.

Third-party recruiters are the ones who always waste my time. Before Covid, many would insist on meeting in person at their office. I even had one that wanted to meet me at 4:30pm in downtown Dallas. That was an easy 'no' for me.

In-house recruiters are totally different. They represent the actual hiring company and aren't just submitting your resume to a job posting.

Someone who immediately jumps to calling someone a jerk, not knowing that there are probably good reasons for what a professional recruiter does (like phone calls) probably is a jerk themselves, honestly. I personally appreciated when my recruiter would talk with me on the phone versus email, as they took the time to really listen to me and find out what I wanted from a job, rather than treating me like another dart they had to throw out of twenty darts to try and get a bullseye. Maybe I’ve always talked to good recruiters but I’ve never questioned their methods and gotten several good jobs with great pay raises from them.

I totally agree. The problem isn’t that I don’t want to get on the phone. The problem is that I don’t want to get on the phone for half an hour without even having a job description or a pay range. That makes the recruiter a jerk.

well said, agreed. same camp.

because when recruiters want to do that it feels like they're just fishing for how little they can pay you, or perhaps just collecting PII for <reasons>.

software companies are becoming much too coy about setting pay expectations upfront. its disrespectful of the talent's time. and feels like a growing fad of gaslighters. "Well they get away with it so we'll try as well..."

I always posted the job location, compensation range, and essential requirements.