[OC] My partner’s 2 months job hunt as a Product Manager (UK, 4 years xp)Submitted by fryd_rice_all_rise t3_123m7q0 in dataisbeautiful
CreepySquirrel6 t1_jdvfgoi wrote
Reply to comment by iTand22 in [OC] My partner’s 2 months job hunt as a Product Manager (UK, 4 years xp) by fryd_rice_all_rise
That’s what I was thinking. If I was hiring maybe interview a person twice if I was still unsure I would move on and go back to the pool of applicants instead.
Even 4 interviews is a mega waste of time. Where do people get the time to do that?
axc2241 t1_jdyd26s wrote
I had one one for a product manager job 2 years ago that had roughly 8-10 interviews and took ~15 hrs if you count my travel time to go interview with someone who was 1.5hrs each way. They just kept saying "hey, 1 more person would like to speak to you". This included being asked to meet with the V.P. which was a 2 min. meeting with 60 min of driving time.
I eventually was told I was the selected for the job but before I got their official offer, Covid shut everything down and they didn't fill the position.
CreepySquirrel6 t1_jdyeiam wrote
That must have been infuriating.
axc2241 t1_je0kca6 wrote
It certainly was frustrating at the time but I did understand their position due to Covid. The infuriating part was instead of telling me they were putting things on hold with Covid, they ghosted me and I had to pursue them to find out what was going on. This is after the V.P. told me I got the job.
CreepySquirrel6 t1_je0nq6i wrote
That makes it even worse. I guess that company is off your list!
axc2241 t1_je0vedk wrote
100% It was a blessing in disguise though. I had a great summer enjoying all of my free time with my Covid unemployment money and ended up getting a full time remote position instead of 30-40 min each way commute.
CreepySquirrel6 t1_je4bqg8 wrote
Sweet! Good for you.
okay-wait-wut t1_jdz2jg7 wrote
I decided I’m not going to look for other jobs because of this kind of bullshit.
axc2241 t1_je0kje1 wrote
This was a unique situation for me which is why I allowed it go this way. I would have pulled myself from contention if it wasn't for some outside circumstances at the time.
Mysterious_Diver_606 t1_jdvgzng wrote
unemployment but that’s not necessarily the case with op edit: wow I’m dumb but if hiring is your entire job I can see someone doing this and it’s probably different people doing different interviews
Brewe t1_jdvhtvj wrote
No no, where do the employers get the time to do that? don't they have an actual job they should do? I know that's part of HR's job, but you really need people who are intimately knowledgeable about the specific position present at the interviews, to ensure you get the right fit.
CreepySquirrel6 t1_jdvhsg4 wrote
Oh i understand it for applicant. I meant from the hiring managers perspective.
[deleted] t1_jdx4rwq wrote
[removed]
Exatex t1_jdx04kx wrote
we usually do
-
screening interview, 15min. Sorting out the creeps, checking availability and all the base things like general salary expectations etc.
-
motivation, Teamfit etc interview and
-
„technical“ interview.
each is usually with a different person. It makes sense, maybe you have a 4th but imho then you really start wasting everybodys time.
PrimeNumbersby2 t1_jdy8ydb wrote
All my close friends have good motivation and teamfit but cannot technically do my job. I'd probably swap 3 and 2. In fact, that's what I do. After CV screening, interview 1 is 10 min background, 40 min technical, 10 min q&a. I already know their personality at the end of 60 min. If anything, I would have 1 more encounter for fit, but more for them to judge about fitting in at my workplace. Why waste so much time?
CreepySquirrel6 t1_jdxt7sl wrote
That sound’s expensive. I get it for a senior executive position maybe. But for front line staff the recruitment team should cull the cvs to a shortlist for you and then you interview the ones you like the look of.
Exatex t1_je1d4sj wrote
yes sure, CV checks happens before anyways. Cutting corners in one of the big interviews and then missing something big is way more expensive than the hour for one or two people. If you hire the wrong person you can easily lose 2-3 months until you notice, let go, rehire. Plus cultural cost if people started liking the miss hire.
CreepySquirrel6 t1_je4bzxf wrote
It depends on the type of role I suppose. I have always been fine with one interview, I have only done two where my VP wants to meet a super senior recruit before a big offer is made.
Exatex t1_je4csax wrote
Yes, role and type of company. We had plenty of people who passed the screening call and first interview but not the second. If we would have found out the red flags later after employing them, that would have been very costly. But we also put lots of emphasis and effort on excellent people (and pay them well), for some specialized roles we sourced and contacted >1000 people until we hired them (a very good decision in hindsight). Especially for key roles, mediocre people can be devastating (I already know that reddit will disagree on that statement haha). If most of your applicants get the job, and you are fine with an ok person that just does the job decently well and quick or are limited by application numbers, thats totally fine.
Lonely-Description85 t1_jdxcrvo wrote
Define "creeps".
threeangelo t1_jdxrl91 wrote
Someone with no people skills / respect for boundaries
Lonely-Description85 t1_jdy0ium wrote
I find people interpretation of others people skills to be very subjective and often unfair. I probably wouldn't belong in your company as I have been told I'm "intense."
Exatex t1_jdz4f4i wrote
In 80% of cases, developers being very condescending towards our (female) recruiter.
Lonely-Description85 t1_je025y3 wrote
Fair enough.
Critical-Network-247 t1_je2eeg7 wrote
What about the 20% of cases? How have you/your company factored in bias when deciding who's a creep?
Exatex t1_je3xzj5 wrote
answered to the question somewhere else what the rest is.
You can only combat bias in a proper way by trying being aware of it. That being said, we are working close together and especially in smaller companies, all team members tend to have one trait/character/interest that unites them, which is ok and important for a culture. If you are aware of biases, it is also okay to have a subjective opinion about someone and also let that be a factor that counts in the decision, again, as long as you are aware of your own biases. I think we are a pretty colorful bunch as a result, maybe sometimes even a bit much. For most startups, it is rather good if at the very beginning, the first founders and hires are very alike. That forms the culture in which you can start being more diverse.
I read a loooot of (meta) research about team diversity as there is lots of contradicting studies. It’s important to focus rather on a task related team composition rather than individual attributes.
MeyhamM2 t1_jdyg99h wrote
As experienced by my boyfriend who is a PhD student in a science field: do they give the women in your department the heebiejeebies? How do they talk to women and interact with them? If anything seems amiss about respect or boundaries: dump them. His department had a sexual harasser in the past and they were taking the “twice shy” approach after that.
Lonely-Description85 t1_jdyje64 wrote
Good thing there aren't more Ted Bundy's out there. People's interpretation of others can be so wrong. They didn't catch it the first time but NOW you can trust the women's "instincts" about someone? When you have women out there that consider mustaches "rapey" , I think maybe you need to just incorporate some social behavior hypotheticals into your interview questionnaire.
Critical-Network-247 t1_je2e8sp wrote
It's funny that you're getting downvoted given stuff like https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/jobs/blind-audition-helps-remove-gender-bias-in-recruitment. 'Creeps' is incredibly unprofessional and gives me dating vibes. What does 'creep' in this work context even mean? The way someone looks, talks? Bullshit.
Lonely-Description85 t1_je2n3ke wrote
Exactly. Modern societies idea that women can magically spot the "creeps" is just completely asinine. Like I said in another comment, if a women who thought mustaches were rapey worked at my potential job site and had a say in my hiring, I'd be fucked.
Critical-Network-247 t1_je2np3h wrote
The fucked up thing is that blatant bias & discrimination is so common in interviews that aren't done "blindly". And it impacts women of course eg https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/aug/12/managers-avoid-hiring-younger-women-maternity-leave.
Some recruiters are young people who don't have a lot of maturity or life experience. Being so immature I don't find it surprising they come up with idiotic reasons to reject someone, especially since many jobs have hundreds of candidates or so.
Lonely-Description85 t1_je2o35i wrote
Depends on the job. Not exactly a 100 nurses lined up outside my hospital....
NiceguyLucifer t1_jdxdrx6 wrote
>checking availability and all the base things like general salary expectations
You can resolve that by just having the full details set in the job description and then you will know that all which applied are ok with those details.No need for that part at all.
also
>Sorting out the creeps
just fuck off with that one
No-Taste-223 t1_jdxrye9 wrote
what’s wrong with sorting out the creeps?
Anyone who’s done any hiring will tell you how essential this part is…
Exatex t1_je1q8lc wrote
> then you will know that all which applied are ok with those details
hahaha, good one
> just fuck off with that one
You obviously never hired. You would not believe the things people do in the first interview. Most common, not even showing up. Being condescending to our female recruiter. Obviously lied in their CV. No work permit. Super shitty internet. Not tech savy enough to open a zoom call. Not listening to anything the recruiter says and discussing unrelated stuff with their friends during the interview? Not able to speak at least acceptable level of english. Trying to flirt with the recruiter.
Most people don’t make it past the first 15 min screening call for absolutely obvious reasons.
NiceguyLucifer t1_je2cv1c wrote
2 rounds should still be enough for anything except high levels like Director or C suite, 1st one with recruiter and 2nd with the direct manager and any other needed person/s.
Yes, people are idiots , a lot , but saying it like that makes it like everyone is like that. There is also a lot that recruiters can do to make to process easier for both themselves and the the people applying , but plenty just don't care.
Critical-Network-247 t1_je2gxq7 wrote
This has precisely been my experience when interviewing with sane, decent companies. 1 recruiter interview, 2nd one with manager and future team mates. The more interviews I had with a company, the nuttier the process. And I've worked for Fortune 500 companies.
cryonine t1_jdxngeq wrote
Depends on type of job, specific role, and seniority. Eight seems excessive unless you're very senior, but 5-6 is pretty common, especially if you're including the recruiter screen.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments