'Fussy' job application processes
Discussion
otherman said:
I've had a few experiences on the other side of the fence. Some jobs get hundreds of applications from people who just mass mail their CV, and those all hit the bin pretty fast.
OP, if you're applying for so many jobs, I suggest a better approach is to narrow down to your applications to a very small number, and put real effort into them. Read the spec, do some research, mod you CV to suit the job and write a quality covering letter that shows you know something about it. People who do that are the ones who get jobs.
I only used to read cover letters for a laugh. Depends on the industry of course but in IT I've always found the carpet bombing approach much more successful - particularly as a contractor. And as a recipient of tailored CVs, they also got dumped as I wanted to see what the applicants wider background w Was, not just could they add the right buzz words.OP, if you're applying for so many jobs, I suggest a better approach is to narrow down to your applications to a very small number, and put real effort into them. Read the spec, do some research, mod you CV to suit the job and write a quality covering letter that shows you know something about it. People who do that are the ones who get jobs.
I feel the OP's pain. These companies that have their own way of doing things that have already been done are a pain in the backside. You already have an optimally formatted profile on LinkedIn and most likely an up-to-date CV and then you have to go and build the whole thing again from scratch on someone's own s
tty system. Then there's some I've encountered that pull all your details over from LinkedIn but put the breaks between jobs in the wrong place so you end up filling it all in manually as it's too much of a dog's dinner to fix. Maybe it's a way of filtering out people who are too lazy to fill it all in, but it also filters out the best talent who can pick and choose where they work and don't have to put up with bullst. All we really need is for LinkedIn to be able to generate a URL that enables you to share your full profile with someone you're not connected with and employers to provide a field for you to paste it into when you apply for a job - one universal system. Life does not need to be more difficult than it needs to be.
tty system. Then there's some I've encountered that pull all your details over from LinkedIn but put the breaks between jobs in the wrong place so you end up filling it all in manually as it's too much of a dog's dinner to fix. Maybe it's a way of filtering out people who are too lazy to fill it all in, but it also filters out the best talent who can pick and choose where they work and don't have to put up with bullst. All we really need is for LinkedIn to be able to generate a URL that enables you to share your full profile with someone you're not connected with and employers to provide a field for you to paste it into when you apply for a job - one universal system. Life does not need to be more difficult than it needs to be.keirik said:
otherman said:
I've had a few experiences on the other side of the fence. Some jobs get hundreds of applications from people who just mass mail their CV, and those all hit the bin pretty fast.
OP, if you're applying for so many jobs, I suggest a better approach is to narrow down to your applications to a very small number, and put real effort into them. Read the spec, do some research, mod you CV to suit the job and write a quality covering letter that shows you know something about it. People who do that are the ones who get jobs.
I only used to read cover letters for a laugh. Depends on the industry of course but in IT I've always found the carpet bombing approach much more successful - particularly as a contractor. And as a recipient of tailored CVs, they also got dumped as I wanted to see what the applicants wider background w Was, not just could they add the right buzz words.OP, if you're applying for so many jobs, I suggest a better approach is to narrow down to your applications to a very small number, and put real effort into them. Read the spec, do some research, mod you CV to suit the job and write a quality covering letter that shows you know something about it. People who do that are the ones who get jobs.
Carpet bomb approach but I generally send applications for these three types:
(1) I think this is something I can do/it's ideal
(2) Job sounds good, but where is it/how much does it pay/who is the company. I need to know more information before I can be swayed
(3) stretch target job (this is where the machine gun approach can pay dividends). It's something I'm slightly or greatly unqualified for but I know it's something I aspire to do
If there are any flags I don't bother applying. If it's below my pay grade or 15 minutes too long a commute, I don't waste my time in the first place. Sometimes you send these "just in case" but then you feel annoyed at yourself because now the recruiter wants to meet you or talk to you and you can't muster the motivation because you don't really want the job
My last two jobs were in category 3, hence almost tripled my wage in 2 years. I sent quite a volume in that space.
Edited by silent ninja on Saturday 3rd February 16:31
otherman said:
I've had a few experiences on the other side of the fence. Some jobs get hundreds of applications from people who just mass mail their CV, and those all hit the bin pretty fast.
OP, if you're applying for so many jobs, I suggest a better approach is to narrow down to your applications to a very small number, and put real effort into them. Read the spec, do some research, mod you CV to suit the job and write a quality covering letter that shows you know something about it. People who do that are the ones who get jobs.
This.OP, if you're applying for so many jobs, I suggest a better approach is to narrow down to your applications to a very small number, and put real effort into them. Read the spec, do some research, mod you CV to suit the job and write a quality covering letter that shows you know something about it. People who do that are the ones who get jobs.
If a CV is not personalised to the role being applied for, I do not shortlist. This is immediately apparent in the first couple of sentences of the opening profile.
I coach this in to CV clients I have and their success rate confirms this is a widely held industry-wide approach, not absolute, but enough to make a massive difference.
What puts most people off this approach is the effort, but as some say, looking for a job is itself a full-time job and any less effort will produce anticipated poor results.
Good luck!
KAgantua said:
Hello.
I am currently looking to move on to a new role and am using indeed, etc.
I have noticed that about 20% or so of the jobs I apply for want you to go to their website, and enter all the infromation from your CV into their little system.
The rest just want your email address, and CV.
I am not bothering with the former types, as my time is limited. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
I don't ever bother. I just work with a decent recruiter, tell them what I'm looking for and wait for something to come up. Much more likely to get an interview that way than an online application anyway.I am currently looking to move on to a new role and am using indeed, etc.
I have noticed that about 20% or so of the jobs I apply for want you to go to their website, and enter all the infromation from your CV into their little system.
The rest just want your email address, and CV.
I am not bothering with the former types, as my time is limited. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
redddraggon said:
It's a good filter for applicants. It always annoyed me, but if I was genuinely interested in the role I jump through their hoops. Some people will just sit on Monster or CV library clicking "Submit CV" for all sorts of random jobs.
I think it's the complete opposite. The more unnecessary effort for the candidate, the less likely you are to get in-demand candidates apply. rog007 said:
This.
If a CV is not personalised to the role being applied for, I do not shortlist. This is immediately apparent in the first couple of sentences of the opening profile.
I coach this in to CV clients I have and their success rate confirms this is a widely held industry-wide approach, not absolute, but enough to make a massive difference.
What puts most people off this approach is the effort, but as some say, looking for a job is itself a full-time job and any less effort will produce anticipated poor results.
Good luck!
The CV or the cover letter?If a CV is not personalised to the role being applied for, I do not shortlist. This is immediately apparent in the first couple of sentences of the opening profile.
I coach this in to CV clients I have and their success rate confirms this is a widely held industry-wide approach, not absolute, but enough to make a massive difference.
What puts most people off this approach is the effort, but as some say, looking for a job is itself a full-time job and any less effort will produce anticipated poor results.
Good luck!
TIGA84 said:
Yeah I always find the best candidates are the ones that can't be fked to do what a potential employer has spent ages creating so everyone gets a fair crack of the whip for a job, a good experience throughout the selection process and hopefully a pay increase and some opportunity.
Your time isn't limited, you're just not serious.
This.ked to do what a potential employer has spent ages creating so everyone gets a fair crack of the whip for a job, a good experience throughout the selection process and hopefully a pay increase and some opportunity.Your time isn't limited, you're just not serious.
These systems are designed to weed out the candidates that aren't serious or eligible... sounds like mission hay-f
king-complished. If you just advertise a job on Jobserve you'll get hundreds of CV's, only about 50 of which will actually be from the UK and about 10 of which are suitable for the job. So large amounts of CV's need to be culled, you can either pay someone to read them and decide or you can use another method to cull the herd.
rog007 said:
This.
If a CV is not personalised to the role being applied for, I do not shortlist. This is immediately apparent in the first couple of sentences of the opening profile.
I hardly ever tailor my CV. Never had an issue getting a job. If a CV is not personalised to the role being applied for, I do not shortlist. This is immediately apparent in the first couple of sentences of the opening profile.
That being said, the best jobs I've had are ones I've had to do a short essay to apply. If its a good job it's worth it, if not, why bother. If an ad is written poorly, they can expect poor replies.
I'm in demand though, so I can afford to take the line that if a recruiter or company doesn't want to read my CV, it's their loss (that being said, I'm always happy to get suggestions for improvement). What really annoys me is when a recruiter calls and says "I like your CV but can you tailor it towards the role" and when asked what they are looking for responds with nothing or b
ks that amounts to nothing. If you expect me to sit down for an hour to revise my CV (which I'm happy to do for a good role) then bloody well tell me what you're after. I think it also speaks of a culture in the firm that you'll be doing things their way.
Whether that's a load of systems that make you work hard to get a simple result, or as someone has suggested a bloated HR unit that thinks they're the most important part of the business.
Generally these forms work well for companies that have a lot of people in similar roles, or with narrow search criteria.
If you have a diverse company and wide range of employee roles then not so much.
You might want to ignore my advice though, as I got my current job by entering a mistype in to an indeed search and it found 1 job where the talent acquisition team at my employers had made the same spelling error on their job description
Whether that's a load of systems that make you work hard to get a simple result, or as someone has suggested a bloated HR unit that thinks they're the most important part of the business.
Generally these forms work well for companies that have a lot of people in similar roles, or with narrow search criteria.
If you have a diverse company and wide range of employee roles then not so much.
You might want to ignore my advice though, as I got my current job by entering a mistype in to an indeed search and it found 1 job where the talent acquisition team at my employers had made the same spelling error on their job description
anonymous said:
[redacted]
My role at my employer involves this sort of thing. I am so glad I jumped through the hoops. I work less than half the year, I earn good money, I have a great pension, a young retirement age, work stops at the door and I genuinely love my job. Sometimes the juice is worth the squeeze.anonymous said:
[redacted]
Indeed.I once applied for a position with the NHS. The application process was complex, but the questions asked were fairly transparent and anybody with half a brain could tailor their answers to suit.
I went for the interview and tests. The role wasn't really the role advertised, I passed the tests (the best of the candidates), but didn't have a clue about the technical questions asked and told them so early on, although they carried on regardless.
-Nobody was appointed, apparently....
My wife's (pseudo-state) sector appears have abandoned their ridiculously complex, but ineffective assessment and recruitment procedures recently.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The overwhelming majority will fit into 1 category of the Myers-Briggs chart I reckon. Very niche but again anyone put off by the process stands to miss out on a great and incredibly safe career. Some things are worth putting in the extra effort for and that isn’t always apparent at the time.SystemParanoia said:
doesnt work.
you'll get ignored just the same as if you shotgunned your CV all over the place
I wouldn’t agree - I’ve just taken on two senior IT guys that went further than sending just their CV in.you'll get ignored just the same as if you shotgunned your CV all over the place
I wouldn’t say it’s 100% nessesary, because a good cv alone also stands out - but sometimes you happen to look at the other stuff and it catches your attention because they are talking about a problem you want to solve.
nought2sixty said:
I went through the testing at Nats and Eurocontrol a few years ago, didn't get either. Would have been an absolutely fantastic career, the Eurocontrol lot especially are on an absolute fortune!
They’re both recruiting again now if you fancy another crack at it!You can of course pay for the qualifications yourself if you want. Aerodrome doesn’t interest me but the likes of Gatwick are paying silly money for controllers at the moment.
utgjon said:
rog007 said:
This.
If a CV is not personalised to the role being applied for, I do not shortlist. This is immediately apparent in the first couple of sentences of the opening profile.
I coach this in to CV clients I have and their success rate confirms this is a widely held industry-wide approach, not absolute, but enough to make a massive difference.
What puts most people off this approach is the effort, but as some say, looking for a job is itself a full-time job and any less effort will produce anticipated poor results.
Good luck!
The CV or the cover letter?If a CV is not personalised to the role being applied for, I do not shortlist. This is immediately apparent in the first couple of sentences of the opening profile.
I coach this in to CV clients I have and their success rate confirms this is a widely held industry-wide approach, not absolute, but enough to make a massive difference.
What puts most people off this approach is the effort, but as some say, looking for a job is itself a full-time job and any less effort will produce anticipated poor results.
Good luck!
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff