People are going to pile on to DHH for again suggesting that his experience represents the whole universe of job hunt circumstances, but if you can hold just two thoughts in your head at a time, there's a kernel of valuable information in here.

No matter where you are, the actual words in your actual resume aren't going to get you hired (although the roles they describe might, and bad words can clearly get you un-hired). He's right about that.

More importantly, 9 out of 10 smart people I've interviewed are positively meek in their resumes and during interviews. They don't stand out at all. What's worse, they make no effort outside of the "official channel", dutifully submitting resumes into the HTML form, talking to the HR person, waiting for us to call back.

DHH is right. If you're just going to play by the HR rules, the cover letter is your one chance to position yourself ahead of the 9 other candidates with similar resumes. It's not the only thing to do, but there's literally no downside to putting an effort in.

You're missing the point of most of the objections here. If the article were just "Have an awesome cover letter and be super enthusiastic!", that would be one thing.

What most people are objecting to is the "forget the resume" part of the headline.

I think you are on the right track here. Getting a job isn't about doing all the right things, but doing the least amount of wrong things.

Another ridiculous anecdotal extrapolation from 37signals.

When I'm hiring, I only look to the cover letter to determine whether the candidate is personally interested in the job, not whether they're qualified for it.

Might I suggest a new title: "If you want to work at 37signals, forget the resume, kill on the cover letter."

Really does sound like a fun place to work. Just be careful you don't write '37 signals' anywhere with a space! Taking self importance to a whole new level.

http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1088-how-not-to-apply-for...

That post alone makes it seem like a little less fun place to work.

I don't understand this complaint. Of course this article is about how to get hired at 37signals and companies that hire in a similar manner. Why on earth would DHH bother writing about how to get hired at companies that don't have hiring practices similar to those of his company? I'd hope that most readers understand that companies are not all the same in their hiring and what may get you hired at one will not get you hired at another.

It's easy to tell at a glance if someone took the time to research your company and write a real cover letter versus the standard mail merge (or, worse, no cover letter).

Then, perhaps I'm biased -- I was later told that it was my cover letter that got me my current job (and no, I don't work at 37signals).

I'm confused. What's ridiculous about exhorting people to write kick-ass cover letters?

The "forget the resume" part, or perhaps the "we don't believe in years of irrelevance" -- they believe 6 months and 5 years of experience are roughly the same when it comes to productivity.

http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/833-years-of-irrelevance

By all means, write a good cover letter -- but be aware that apparently unlike 37signals, some hiring managers do actually skim resumes when making the first cut. I'd feel irresponsible not doing so.

"Write a good cover letter", however, is not particularly novel or link-bait worthy advice.

Doesn't decimate literally mean to reduce by ten percent? Literally decimating the pool would mean eliminating 7 applicants :)

I just did a quick order of magnitude calculation to see how many times that exact comment has been written in response to a story on the internet containing the word "decimate," and I came up with 10^7.

I have no problem with people using the word "decimate" loosely. It's the word "literally" that gets me. If you say, "I literally have to decimate the pool", then it should be the literal definition of decimate you're talking about.

Exactly, that's the irony. I wouldn't have pointed it out otherwise.

The word "literally" literally means "word by word, letter by letter." So I assume that since you're such a stickler, you only use it to talk about transcribing the scripture... right?

Or, put another way, get over yourself. Language evolves. And "literally" has been used in ways you would consider "wrong" for several hundred years now.

I wasn't using the word "literally" literally, but that's okay because I never said I was. I guess I'm a stickler because I think words work better when they have strong, precise meanings. Over time, these meanings tend to get watered down, and I think that's a shame.

That was my point: you were using a watered down version of literally that, over time, came to be an agreed upon definition. That's just how it goes.

Whats the appropriate attire for an interview at a tech startup? Somewhere in between a suit and jeans/tee?

I usually just ask on one of the phone interviews before coming in "Do you guys dress casually or prefer business casual?" and they tell me exactly how they dress. It is that easy.

Blue jeans, a polo shirt and converse or vans are the only thing I've worn to work or an interview since 1999.

I've also interviewed a ton of people and the only time I've noticed what people are wearing are if they were wearing "dress clothes" or they had one of those weird burning man goth cyber warrior outfits on.

"burning man goth cyber warrior outfits"

I think I've just discovered the new office dress code.

I prefer to wear what I normally do. If the company has the same "code over looks" outlook that I have then it won't be an issue. If they object to jeans and tshirt, then we wouldn't have been a good fit anyway. (Of course the exception is client facing roles, there's an understandable reason to dress correctly for that)

"Come, as you are, as you were, .. as a friend".

The safest bet is always chinos and a button-up long-sleeved shirt. Not too casual, not too dressy.

For a while, that is all I owned. It is the most flexible outfit. untucked, sleeves rolled up, top 3 buttons undone and you are chillin on the beach. Button it up, to just top button open, roll down sleeves, you're at work. Tuck it in, add a tie and jacket, and you're ready for a formal occasion. I never quite found the appropriately versatile pair of shoes, however.

Business casual. A tie says "BigCo refugee". A t-shirt and jeans probably won't neg you, but it can in some places.

And remember, you can always ask the HR rep setting up the interview what the typical dress at the company is.

Danger-Will-Robbins. If you're applying at a VC-funded company, there's a decent chance the HR person has no idea what the engineering culture is actually like. Don't wear the tie.

In every company I've worked for (pre-money startups, post-money startups, small public companies, 10000+ behemoths), the HR tech recruiters actually interacted with the team frequently and had a good idea how they dressed and behaved.

I've interviewed with one startup (and got an offer), and I was in business casual (no tie).

Going too casual can hurt you a lot more than too professional, IMHO.

I for one don't care if I'm working with someone with the all the personality of a door-knob.

If someone knows their shit and doesn't piss other people off, that's enough personality for me.

In this case since it was a design position I can understand why they want someone wacky and zany and original, but if I saw this behavior in a programmer applicant I would figure they had forgotten to take their meds that morning.

Programming is a design job. It's just a different kind of design.

Highlights a larger issue - the way we hire people is broken. Resumes and cover letters only give you enough info to know the person may or may not be qualified for the job. Are they a fit with culture at your company? Are they going to leave in a year to pursue their REAL passion?

That's what interviews and references are for.

Except I don't have time to interview 50 candidates.

Maybe you could find a way to make time, perhaps by starting with a shorter initial phone screen. Interactive dialog has much better predictive power compared to resume+coverletter in my experience.

And people constantly point out that even an interview is no predictor of job performance.

I have never once seen a real hiring manager look at these, most good candidates aren't going to be writing ones specific to your company. I'm sure its nice to be 37S.

As a hiring manager, my experience has been the opposite.

When hiring staff members that need to be able to write documents as part of the job and explain things clearly, the cover letter can make a significant difference. Most good candidates do write ones specific to your company. A generic cover letter is an extension of the resume (at best) and often an indicator of a lack of interest (at worst).

If you're talking to a "hiring manager" who "doesn't read cover letters", you've already conceded the game. Also, speak for yourself --- I read cover letters in advance, and often don't even bother with the resume until the candidate is in front of me.

I have no idea why you think most good candidates won't be "writing specific cover letters for your company". Top talent doesn't shotgun resumes across 100 companies; they pick places they think they'll like, have a reason for doing it, and do everything they can to get the best possible offer.

Why would you not read their resume before the interview?

I spend a good 30-45 minutes building a list of questions based entirely on the contents of their resume. I couldn't imagine just looking at a resume and then interviewing a person off the cuff. Seems a little rude.

It is rude, but this happens a lot, especially at smaller startups. The chain of communication is usually a bit chaotic and most people are very busy. Sometimes people get pulled into the interview at the last minute, and so on and so forth...

Why would you interview someone based on their resume? Why wouldn't you take 30-45 minutes across all your candidates to build a list of questions that were actually relevant to your business? The cart seems to be dragging the horse here.

Hi, I hire people. I read cover letters. I consider them almost as important as a resume.

If they are generic form letters that have been obviously sent to everyone without any modification, then I probably won't even talk to the person applying.

If they aren't interested in what we're hiring for, it makes me a lot less interested than what they have to offer.

You hire programmers? Good ones ? And they are so desperate to work for you they will waste there time on that nonsense?

Cover letters aren't hard. At all. I have a generic cover letter that I tweak a little bit for each company. Fill in the position I'm applying for, explain relevant experience, say that I'll "help the company $WHATEVER_THEY_DO", and if I'm particularly interested in working for the company, explain why. It takes 5-10 minutes tops. I don't think there's ever been a time that I didn't get a response when the job was particularly interesting. People tend to want to hire people who want to do the job.

This is seriously all it takes. All I want is some indication that someone has read the posting, and that they comprehend what we're looking for. Anything on top of that is a bonus.

Well, with my way I don't have to put up with programmers who think they're too good to put some effort into getting hired.

I always tailor my cover letters to each company. On the other hand, I'm not shotgunning out 100s of resumes.

But, my experience on the other side of the table is that I've never actually gotten a cover letter passed on from HR. Or, if HR gave them to the hiring managers, they didn't pass them on to the engineers reviewing resumes & doing interviews.

I've done a fair amount of job interviews and cover letters are always stripped by our (internal) recruiters. When external recruiters are involved it looks like they do $ cat resume.doc | strings | mail [email protected].

Maybe there's a strategy here:

Cover letter: I love frat-houses and beer! I want to bring my spiky hair to work for you!

Resume: When I'm not submitting patches to the RoR team I'm writing Scala code for my EC2 cluster.

It's a shame the economy is so bad. It would be fun to do some exploratory job hunting to see if this strategy would work.

How about kill it on your Google search for your name?

Ho, and indeed, Hum.