In August 2012 I published a blog post Why You Didn’t Get The Interview, which received a good bit of attention from readers and was republished a few times (most notably by Lifehacker). Of course one article could not list every possible explanation that an employer or recruiter might use to discard a résumé, so I decided to revisit the topic once again. This is not intended to be a comprehensive list, but rather an addendum to the previous post that may help explain a lack of response to your job search.
No submittal content – Online applications often consist of several fields and check boxes that don’t always give job seekers an opportunity to express interest or differentiate themselves. However, when you send a résumé via email or are provided some space within an online application to craft a custom message, you are foolish not to take advantage. Simply sending a résumé without any supporting information about your experience or interest in the job comes across as lazy or aloof, and can give the appearance that a job seeker is simply blasting résumés indiscriminately (perhaps even in an automated fashion). SOLUTION: Tell the employer at least one or two things that drew your attention to the job and company.
Multiple applications to the same employer for vastly different roles – Sometimes I will open my inbox and find an email from a job seeker about one job that could possibly be a fit, and then find another four or five emails from the same applicant for other jobs that are not remotely connected to the candidate’s experience. This applicant may have received some attention if he/she only sent the one semi-targeted application, but the additional blind stabs have too many negative implications. It typically signifies either a lack of self-awareness regarding qualifications, immaturity, or desperation. SOLUTION: Before submitting your résumé, check several of the company’s listings to make sure that you are applying for the one or two jobs that best fit your experience and goals. If you have a strong desire to work for a specific employer, sending a targeted application to one or two listings is much more effective than spamming your résumé to all of their vacant slots.
Many small red flags – My original article last year referenced 14 fairly obvious reasons that job seekers are not interviewed, but often it’s not that simple. Many times a résumé/application package will contain a handful of items that would not be a problem when considered individually, but when combined add up to a rejection. The recruiter or hiring manager will feel that too many special circumstances would have to occur that make the candidate’s hire unlikely. Perhaps a candidate has a slightly elevated salary expectation, requires relocation assistance, is minimally qualified, and lacks any easily identifiable positive indicators of talent or ability that stand out from others. An applicant with only one of those characteristics would likely be considered, but the aggregate picture makes it too much of a longshot. SOLUTION: There is no real fix to this. You could always try to explain what could be perceived as a red flag. For example, if you are relocating to a specific area, make it clear why you are looking in that specific market to avoid being viewed as someone open to jobs worldwide. Displaying some level of interest or passion for the employer could also help overcome objections and get you a shot.
Personal reputation and your employer’s reputation – It shouldn’t surprise anyone that if you apply to firms where people either know you or are connected to those that do, a decision to interview will typically be based on how these contacts feel and talk about you. However, your employer’s reputation may also come into play here as well. If a particular company has interviewed multiple former employees of your firm without much success, chances are they will not waste time interviewing another. As a recruiter, it is fairly common for companies to tell me “Unless they are outstanding I’m not overly interested in candidates from COMPANY, as we see many and have not had any luck.” Your company’s reputation is more likely to work in your favor if you are employed by a firm known for having talent, but it seems the trend to discriminate against employees of certain shops continues. I wrote about this a bit in a past post regarding discrimination by startups against workers from large enterprises. SOLUTION: Keep your personal reputation in mind when dealing with co-workers and particularly when leaving jobs. Minimize stints at employers that have a negative reputation in your market.
Inconsistency – This can be the result of discrepancies between a résumé and cover letter/application, between a résumé and LinkedIn profile, or just something fishy in the résumé itself. If you changed professions more often than Barbie (impressive list) or have travailed up the corporate ladder and come back down multiple times, your application will raise suspicions. Candidates that list titles progressing from CTO to CEO and then down to Junior Developer will be scrutinized. SOLUTION: There isn’t anything you can do to change the past, but explanations could go a long way if you left an industry to pursue a passion. Make sure all of your online profiles match your résumé details before sending applications. Try to use job titles that reflected your actual duties if you worked for a small firm and had an inflated title. Even if you were CEO or CTO of your dorm room software company, it may not be helpful to list the job that way.
“Meh“ – Your qualifications and history are virtually identical to the others in the stack of résumés received. You may have met what was listed on the job spec, but so did everybody else. This is of particular importance for jobs where it is expected that most applicants will have similar qualifications, such as entry-level positions for new graduates or jobs that list highly generic specifications. SOLUTION: There has to be something different about you that you can add to give some positive spin to your candidacy. Review the requirement again and try to find an area where your background exceeds the expectation, or a specific experience you have that others probably don’t.
My ebook Job Tips For GEEKS: The Job Search was recently released and is available for
$9.99 (reduced to $6.99 in December 2013) on iTunes, Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Google Play, and Kobo. I can provide a PDF version for sale by request.
A recent Hacker News post by a man named Andrew was voted to the front page and received over 50 comments (as of my post). The post was called Ask HN: Would you hire me?, and Andrew specified that he was talking about a junior level position.
He provided the following details about himself:
- 28 years old with a Finance Degree from a non-Ivy league school
- Spent the last two years living overseas teaching English and learning to code
He also included links to his:
- GitHub – handful of repos, 7 months as a member, pretty active over the last quarter
- Stack Overflow profile – 521 reputation, top 37% this quarter, 16 badges
- Blog – Attractive UI, 7 overall posts (a few with some code), with the highlight being details of a Chrome extension he built and demonstrates in a video
Andrew received a fair amount of positive feedback, and not one single poster gave a ‘you are not hirable‘ response. No CS degree, no professional experience, yet a highly technical audience were either mostly positive and at worst neutral on hiring (considering is more accurate) this potential applicant. Only a couple responders mentioned looking at the one project he listed, and none referenced the quality of his code samples on his blog or GitHub, so we might assume that no one even bothered to look at his code. Interesting.
Part of the explanation for the positive response is undoubtedly the makeup of the Hacker News crowd, which does not include a large contingent of HR reps from large companies who control a great deal of the hiring decisions. Place this resume and story on Monster or Dice, and I expect that Andrew would receive responses from less than a quarter of his viewers. Possibly less than a tenth.
I admit, if I were to see this candidate’s resume (assuming it reflected the details he put on HN), I would absolutely want to speak to him. The clients I represent, which are mostly startup and early stage software companies, are more representative of the HN crowd (at least in terms of evaluating engineers) than most larger companies. And even if I did not have a great opportunity for him today, I would think that a few years down the road he will be someone that I’d want to represent.
What is it about this candidate with no experience and no highly relevant education that gets our attention? Of the details we have about Andrew, how many could have impacted my decision to speak to him?
When evaluating talent and the decision whether or not to interview a candidate for a software job, I must rely on several attributes that have historically been attached to quality talent that were successful in receiving job offers from my clients.
Let’s break it down.
28 years old with a Finance Degree from a non-Ivy league school – Most readers, including myself, probably didn’t give this any thought. His degree in finance should indicate some math background, and if he had listed his specific school that would have had an impact. Although most might be reluctant to mention it, the age demographic is probably a positive based on the industry, as he obviously has some life experience and maturity but will not fall prey to any old dog/new tricks bias.
Spent the last two years living overseas teaching English and learning to code – Teaching any subject to any students is valuable experience for almost any profession, and should indicate some level of communication skills. The international aspect adds a bit more interesting background than if he were teaching domestically. Some who chose to speak to Andrew may have been strongly influenced by the oversas aspect, as this could also show some willingness to face risk and change.
GitHub, Stack Overflow, and Blog – For those that make decisions about technical talent, the fact that Andrew has both a GitHub and Stack Overflow account is probably more of an indicator of possible talent than what is actually in the accounts. Most candidates in my experience don’t have a GitHub/Bitbucket or SO account, but those who do have accounts are historically more successful with my clients than those who don’t. The attractive blog and few technical posts are yet another indicator, showing some passion as well as the ability to articulate his ideas in writing.
What other details may have led to the decision of HN readers or people like me who would at least want to speak to Andrew?
He reads Hacker News – Even if he isn’t a senior developer, he at least appears to have spent some time in one community where they frequent.
He comes across as modest and doesn’t appear to feel entitled – You don’t see anywhere in Andrew’s post a reference to how awesome he is or how he is ‘kicking CSS’s ass on a daily basis’. His responses to feedback are very positive, grateful, and polite. The choice of ‘well versed’ over some other terms that may be linked to overconfidence was wise. Andrew also will not be accused of sounding entitled to a great dev job, and on the contrary he comes across as someone who knows he has to earn it. Perhaps that is a function of his lack of a CS degree, but either way he appears to be taking the right approach.
He’s already creating product – Although he is only early on in his tech studies, Andrew has a product on the market that you can find in the Chrome Web Store that you can download. There are developers with 20 years of experience that haven’t built any of their own tools or products yet, but this guy is two years in and has that mindset. Some may question how great (or even good) a product someone at this level of experience could build, but the desire to produce and distribute a tool is something that perhaps can’t be taught.
Note: Other indicators I use regularly include:
- Past employers – Some companies frankly have a higher standard of hiring
- Technical hobbies – Arduino, build robots, or create things at home
- Speaking or writing – Presentations and publications are usually strong indicators
- Tool choice – What blogging platform or operating system you run at home
- User group and meetup – Shows interest and passion
Conclusion: Hiring managers and recruiters are making quick decisions to interview and consider candidates, and as demonstrated by this HN post it seems that there are several recognized indicators of possible talent. For job seekers, you may want to display links to your accounts prominently, and highlight details such as independent product development.
Of course, these indicators are not perfect. I, too, have a GitHub and Stack Overflow account and a blog that covers technology (and I even run one of the best Java Users’ Groups in the world) – but I don’t write code. Readers of HN should not hire me.
Discuss here or on Hacker News.
The saying goes you never get a second chance to make a first impression, and it is well-documented that this is never more true than in the effort to hire great technical talent. Complaints about the interview practices of some companies and anecdotes about how recruiters make foolish approaches are quite popular reads lately. As someone in the hiring business, the criticism can be painful to hear, but when justified with evidence of ineptitude it is certainly understandable.
Demand for elite developers is so competitive (and talent is so hyperaware of this fact) that both recruiters and company representatives rarely get a second chance if their first contact or the ensuing hiring process is received negatively. The best case scenario for the headhunter approach gone awry is to have the attempt ignored, and the worst case is public shaming by a tech celebrity. It is particularly painful when a recruiter or company turns off an attractive candidate (whether through an email or hiring process) that possesses a very rare skill or experience, or worse yet a high degree of both skill and community influence.
Accomplished technologists can be brutally unforgiving to even the slightest perceived breaches by recruiters, and the level of outrage is often congruent to the programmer’s self-perceived industry status. This is most likely a function of the sheer volume of noise received by high-end talent with status, and the frustration that noise can cause. Junior level candidates tend to appreciate any type of attention, while the more senior or recognizable professionals seem to rarely find any recruiter contact worthy of a positive response. Beyond just the recruiter problem, the interview process and practices used by companies cause very strong negative reactions by many in the industry. When offended, those that feel they’ve earned ninja status (used ironically, please stop saying ninja) seem most likely to wield the sword.
Applicants that appear average will probably be treated that way. But when a recruiter or a company hiring manager discover what could be that once-in-a-lifetime potential hire, or even a candidate that would seem to fall into the top 10%, they must be flexible enough to change their standard hiring protocol while exercising an abundance of both caution and tact at every contact. Many companies homogenize the process for all candidates to their own detriment, and when dealing with in-demand talent that typically comes with a bit of ego thrown in for good measure, treating the ninja like a common commodity is a critical error.
What are the most obvious ways that recruiters and companies turn off the most qualified candidates during first contact and the subsequent hiring process?
First, mistakes in the approach:
- Impersonal contact and lack of research – The link earlier in the article referencing a recruiter approaching DHH for a Rails role happened more than once, and notably a recruiter for Groupon made the same mistake. These examples are well beyond a typical recruiter infraction, as most Rails engineers are not DHH and most recruiters are not this lazy and clueless. The ‘Let’s connect on LinkedIn‘ invite without any point of reference also applies to this category. Recruiters are given little leeway and must conduct at least minimal research before contact, and then must choose their words wisely. Once you know a bit about the candidate, tell him/her why you felt it was appropriate to reach out. Be specific.
- Referral requests – Recruiters are trained from birth to end every communication with ‘Do you know anyone else who might be qualified?‘, and they are often asking complete strangers. Technologists at the lower levels look at this as an opportunity to help a colleague find work (and maybe even get a referral bonus), while ninjas who make plenty of money have no interest in helping most recruiters and view the request itself as a breach. Don’t ask top people for referrals until you have at least developed some form of relationship, and even then only with caution.
- Approached by the wrong person – When courting high-end talent (particularly for a small company), it is wise to get an internal talent or leader involved as early as possible. Your junior recruiter that started last week should be kept in check until he/she knows how to market the company, and that marketing skill should be honed in conversations with junior candidates that generally require a lower degree of difficulty and thus reduced potential risk. Startup CEO, CTO or Development Managers should be willing to send a quick note from their own email in order to get a ninja’s attention early in the process. Recruiters need to know when it may be appropriate to step aside for first contact.
- Lack of details – Vague, boilerplate company descriptions rarely get the attention of top talent, and may turn off the candidate completely without ever getting the chance to show them more. Provide as much detail as reasonably possible to demonstrate that you have no intention of wasting their time.
And in the hiring process:
- The HR phone screen – I cringe when a client responds to my submittal of a top talent with ‘This one looks great! We’ll have Joe from HR do a quick phone screen‘. NO! Some recruiters vet engineers better than others, but if a candidate looks stronger on paper than most you see, forgo the pleasantries and get down to business.
- Standardized tests – These are fairly rare with startups and small companies and for midsize and large companies these tests serve as just another way to scare off top talent. Tests for IQ, personality types, and even third-party technical tests tend to give the wrong impression to talent. Development managers at companies that employ standardized tests could be frustrated with the skill level of their applicants, and should want to promote policy change or at least allow for exceptions.
- Disorganized interview process and inflexibility – Missed phone calls and making candidates languish in a lobby while waiting for an interviewer is inexcusable when wooing a strong candidate, and tech talent may feel these indiscretions could reflect on your work environment. Even if you traditionally like to keep interviews very loose and informal, use at least a small amount of choreography when entertaining the ninja to keep their engagement level high. Accommodating a request for a call either before or after hours could also be the difference when interviewing candidates that are unable to use business hours for meetings.
- Lowball offers and negotiation games – After investing a fair amount of time building mutual trust and admiration during the interview process, the last thing you should do is play games when it comes to sealing the deal. The long term value of the hire should not be risked for a few thousand dollars saved through negotiations.
Conclusion: Companies and recruiters need to do a better job of customizing their approach and treatment of top technical talent. While technical recruiting is generally considered a numbers game focused on high-volume, the courting of the most elite developers requires a completely different and more time consuming campaign to be implemented by your most competent resources.
Discuss on Hacker News.