Things you hate about Job Adverts/Recruitment

[lambosagogo]

What got me was these are single round panel interviews with 2-4 interviewers each reading a single question in turn, no follow-ups and no questions actually related to the technical specifics of the role. And they appoint after this single round. So they are looking for a network / infrastructure person but don’t ask any direct questions about networks or infrastructure. I did try to show technical knowledge as I answered a question (“One time I dealt with conflict was when I was configuring [some piece of infrastructure I know they have] and...”) but that was very forced. Maybe they’re good if the interviewers ask a few questions and riff off them but when it’s just one question, next question etc I do wonder about their effectiveness.

[TheAngryDog]

Gargamel said:

Countdown said:

Gargamel said:

I wasn't going to respond but the continual moaning has dragged me in.

Ok - I am hiring, lets say its Reading, Woking, Romford or St Albans. You work in London. My team are relatively junior and I want to hire a more experienced person to beef things up.

I ask around for pay data and I look at my current team. I set the teams pay as the low end of my range say 40k and from asking around (benchmarking) I discover competitors pay an average of 50k and larger London firms pay 60k

I assume someone at 60k is probably over the top, but if they are a good fit and worth it in value add - I might be tempted.

So what number do I write on the advert ?

If I write 40k which is my current team, I won't get a more senior person.
If I put 50k I will piss of my team
If I put 50k the market average, someone in a similar role is probably on 50k and lets be honest everyone expects at least 10% to make it worthwhile moving companies
So I could put 55k to get someone - but then I am guaranteeing I am going to pay at least 55k since anyone on 45k applying will ask for the job rate I put in the advert

OR

I put 'attractive salary and benefits'

Go figure

How about "Senior Gargamel Team member" 50k-60k?

This tells your team the difference between their current tole and what you're looking, it will attract somebody in the 45-50k range who are looking to move upwards, it gives you flexibility to appoint somebody at the bottom or at the top. The only thing it stops you from doing is appointing somebody who is better than your current team at the same salary as them.

I wasn't suggesting solutions. I was explaining WHY it doesn't happen. Managers don't want the awkward conversations within the existing team, and of course there are multiple variations of this. Handing infrmation to your competitors etc.

Some people view pay as transparent and would prefer total transparency on everything, and are likely to be mature and realise you don't always get what you want - at least not all the time.

Then you have others who see pay as very personal, and would expect discretion both from the company and an individual pay deal.

Hence the debate - I have worked with both system, they both have drawback, when I put salaries on I recieved many more 'chancers' looking to double their pay, and very few for whom it was a 10% step ....

Oddly lots of people apply who are above what you say you are willing to pay and expect you to up the band....

Do you have a problem with people who are under paid applying for a role that is more than 10% above their current pay, but is actually what they're worth? As it seems like you do?

[Gargamel]

TheAngryDog said:

Do you have a problem with people who are under paid applying for a role that is more than 10% above their current pay, but is actually what they're worth? As it seems like you do?

If thats what they are worth, then why aren't they getting that already

[lyonspride]

Gargamel said:

TheAngryDog said:

Do you have a problem with people who are under paid applying for a role that is more than 10% above their current pay, but is actually what they're worth? As it seems like you do?

If thats what they are worth, then why aren't they getting that already

Because that's how most employers think?

[Gargamel]

lyonspride said:

Because that's how most employers think?

Pesky employers giving people jobs and paying them.

[echazfraz]

lambosagogo said:

What got me was these are single round panel interviews with 2-4 interviewers each reading a single question in turn, no follow-ups and no questions actually related to the technical specifics of the role. And they appoint after this single round. So they are looking for a network / infrastructure person but don’t ask any direct questions about networks or infrastructure. I did try to show technical knowledge as I answered a question (“One time I dealt with conflict was when I was configuring [some piece of infrastructure I know they have] and...”) but that was very forced. Maybe they’re good if the interviewers ask a few questions and riff off them but when it’s just one question, next question etc I do wonder about their effectiveness.

Which government department, ex-government organisation, or local council were you applying to work for?

I wasn't a fan of competency-based questions initially but really the cream rises to the top either way and competency-based questions at least give everyone a fair shot and assuage to a great degree accusations of favouritism / bias.

Good candidates I find have read up on this style of interview and can make their experience shine through via it.
Good interviewers will find ways to get what they need from follow up questions and probing around the answers given.

And you can ask for presentations to be given to score against too, which gives a real insight into how people think / present (themselves).

[Sporky]

echazfraz said:

Good candidates I find have read up on this style of interview and can make their experience shine through via it.

I think that's good interviewees rather than good candidates. There's an intersection between them, but there are lots of great people who are crap at interviews.

The last chap I hired was like that. I'd met him in advance, bought him lunch, and worked out that he was an excellent fit. The sales director and Head of Sector Sales did a full-on formal interview and came out concerned (understatement) that he wasn't loud/outgoing enough compared to the clown he was replacing. I won; he's been awesome, including in front of customers. Awful at interviews though. The aforementioned clown was brilliant in interviews but an unholy disaster of an employee. Super confident, utterly lacking in rigour of thought.

[Countdown]

The only thing is that is you have 10-15 people at 1st stage interview, that's an awful lot of 1-to-1 lunches. Also competency based interviews don't prevent a person's personality from coming through.

[Sporky]

How many are you looking to hire from that 10-15?

[Countdown]

Sporky said:

How many are you looking to hire from that 10-15?

One

[Sporky]

Seems like a lot of work - for you and the candidates - to hire one person.

I'd only want to interview three at most if I've only got one position to fill. I'm not in a big industry in terms of how many good people there are though, that might make quite a difference.

[lyonspride]

lambosagogo said:

What got me was these are single round panel interviews with 2-4 interviewers each reading a single question in turn, no follow-ups and no questions actually related to the technical specifics of the role. And they appoint after this single round. So they are looking for a network / infrastructure person but don’t ask any direct questions about networks or infrastructure. I did try to show technical knowledge as I answered a question (“One time I dealt with conflict was when I was configuring [some piece of infrastructure I know they have] and...”) but that was very forced. Maybe they’re good if the interviewers ask a few questions and riff off them but when it’s just one question, next question etc I do wonder about their effectiveness.

Do you think that technical people (who really know their stuff people) get into positions where they'd be carrying out interviews?

No, that rarely if ever happens theses days, you're more likely to get someone who got a degree, jumped to management and has no actual experience in that line of work. If they ask a technical question it will be theory based, often stuff that nobody ever actually uses.

I did an electronics interview a few years ago, the guy put a theoretical cct diagram in front of me and wanted me to work out voltage/current/power at points in the cct, not an unreasonable request, but what was unreasonable was berating me for not putting my "working out" down on paper, the truth was I didn't need to, I looked at it and knew what the values were without needing to calculate it, was I right? yes in theory, but I know that in real life theory never quite works, there always other factors (like power supply output resistance).

Edited by lyonspride on Thursday 17th June 08:15

[Evanivitch]

lyonspride said:

I did an electronics interview a few years ago, the guy put a theoretical cct diagram in front of me and wanted me to work out voltage/current/power at points in the cct, not an unreasonable request, but what was unreasonable was berating me for not putting my "working out" down on paper, the truth was I didn't need to, I looked at it and knew what the values were without needing to calculate it, was I right? yes in theory, but I know that in real life theory never quite works, there always other factors (like power supply output resistance).

Edited by lyonspride on Thursday 17th June 08:15

And let's be fair, most tasks you would do as a written task in 20 minutes of an interview are not representative of the tasks you'd complete in your role e.g. complex modelling using software packages. So the value of them has somewhat decreased over time.

[lyonspride]

Evanivitch said:

lyonspride said:

I did an electronics interview a few years ago, the guy put a theoretical cct diagram in front of me and wanted me to work out voltage/current/power at points in the cct, not an unreasonable request, but what was unreasonable was berating me for not putting my "working out" down on paper, the truth was I didn't need to, I looked at it and knew what the values were without needing to calculate it, was I right? yes in theory, but I know that in real life theory never quite works, there always other factors (like power supply output resistance).

Edited by lyonspride on Thursday 17th June 08:15

And let's be fair, most tasks you would do as a written task in 20 minutes of an interview are not representative of the tasks you'd complete in your role e.g. complex modelling using software packages. So the value of them has somewhat decreased over time.

Pointless testing, the chap who did the initial phone interview was sound, but he did say they normally hire graduates, at the 2nd interview it felt more like the other guy was trying to prove that people without a degree are stupid, and in the end he looked stupid because he had to pull out a calculator to see that my numbers were correct.

[okgo]

It's obviously automated

Jesus christ, do you think someone is handwriting curated notes for developer jobs? Of course not, they'll have sent that out to 5000 people with some keywords in their profile and see what comes back.

Our company recruiter has tried to recruit my wife 4 times now, she for some reason has your reaction each time. It's just spray and pray, if you're in a ten a penny role this is what happens, as I tell her each time and you are perhaps finding.

[lyonspride]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It does make you wonder though.............

I apply for jobs I can clearly do, I hear nothing, but then I get emails every week or so not unlike this with a totally unsuitable role.

It only confirms what I already suspect, that most job postings are fake, recruitment agents are clueless, and when a real role comes up they fire off emails to anyone with a relevant keyword in their CV/resume.