Slashdot Mirror
Average Duration of Hiring Process For Software Engineers: 35 Days
itwbennett writes: Despite the high demand for tech workers of pretty much all stripes, the hiring process is still rather drawn out, with the average time-to-hire for Software Engineers taking 35 days. That's one of the findings of a new study from career site Glassdoor. The study, led by Glassdoor's Chief Economist Dr. Andrew Chamberlain, analyzed over 340,000 interview reviews, covering 74,000 unique job titles, submitted to the site from February 2009 through February 2015. Glassdoor found that the average time-to-hire for all jobs has increased 80% (from 12.6 days to 22.9 days) since 2010. The biggest reason for this jump: The increased reliance on screening tests of various sorts, from background checks and skills tests to drug tests and personality tests, among others.
I'm getting tired of not being able to read the entire heading for these stories, Slashdot. I know 8 year olds that would be better at web design than whatever "team" is handling it for you guys.
So is the average duration of a job search 35 years? 35 minutes? 35 seconds? 35 months?
#DeleteChrome
The norm for big software companies seems to be: you have some number of open reqs for your team, and you're eager to fill them (both to get the work done, and because the might vanish). So you work your pipeline as best you can, interview anyone who passes a phone screen, and hire anyone who passes the interview. At most places I've worked, we end making an offer to about 1 in 20 people we phone screen (about 1 in 3 who we bring in); where I am now we make an offer to about 1 in 5 we bring in, and they don't always accept of course, so that's maybe 50 people who look good enough to phone screen to hire 1. You're much more likely to have too few qualified candidates than too many. Normally, if you end up with an extra guy you'd like to make an offer to, another team will be delighted to take him.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
>> So a job listing website has a "Chief Economist" on staff? What the fuck for?
I'll bite. Back in the back I was an intern for an economist at a huge phone company. We were part of the marketing division, and our job was to parse economic trends to figure out things like which regions were growing fastest (so we could reallocate resources there to capture market share), which seasonal trends were emerging (e.g., non-Christian holidays) and which corporate markets were healthiest based on indicators like sector stock performance. It was never double-digit percentage revenue stuff, but at a very large company it made sense to spend a million on economists to capture a few extra dozen million or so in revenue.
And which do you think came first, eh? Employers treating developers like interchangeable cogs, or developers treating employers like interchangeable paycheck providers?
There's a reason previous generations stayed in their jobs longer, and it has nothing to do with the current generation's lack of work-ethic/loyalty/etc., and everything to do with the changes employers have been making over the last couple of decades: No more pensions, no more promoting from within the ranks (You're either management caste or you're not), constant cost-cutting (what training budget?), layoffs at the drop of a hat, etc..
Employers have been systematically training any sense of loyalty out of the workforce, don't complain that you've been successful.