Slashdot Mirror
Recruiters Are Still Complaining About No-Shows At Interviews (kyma.com)
An anonymous reader quotes CNN Money:
Chandra Kill had scheduled face-to-face interviews with 21 candidates to fill some job openings at her employment screening firm. Only 11 showed up. "About half flaked out," said Kill.... "A year or two ago it wasn't like this." With the U.S. unemployment rate at its lowest in 18 years, and more job openings than there are people looking for work, candidates are bailing on scheduled interviews. In some cases, new hires are not showing up for their first day of work....
While there's nothing wrong with accepting another job offer, bailing on an employer without notice could have lasting effects. "The world is small," said Johnny Taylor, president and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management.... He added that he's heard of a candidate being flown out for a job interview only to skip that part of the trip. "I expect that if I send you a plane ticket and block off two hours to meet with you, you will show up." As a result, he said some companies are having candidates agree to reimburse for travel costs if they take the trip but flake on the interview.
In an effort to curb the problem, recruiters have been changing their tactics and moving through the hiring process faster. If they have a qualified candidate that seems like a good fit, they work to get them in for an interview the next day.
Inc. magazine once blamed the problem of no-shows on the low unemployment rate and "the effects technology have had on the communication style of younger generations." But leave your own thoughts in the comments.
And have you ever been a no-show for a job interview?
While there's nothing wrong with accepting another job offer, bailing on an employer without notice could have lasting effects. "The world is small," said Johnny Taylor, president and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management.... He added that he's heard of a candidate being flown out for a job interview only to skip that part of the trip. "I expect that if I send you a plane ticket and block off two hours to meet with you, you will show up." As a result, he said some companies are having candidates agree to reimburse for travel costs if they take the trip but flake on the interview.
In an effort to curb the problem, recruiters have been changing their tactics and moving through the hiring process faster. If they have a qualified candidate that seems like a good fit, they work to get them in for an interview the next day.
Inc. magazine once blamed the problem of no-shows on the low unemployment rate and "the effects technology have had on the communication style of younger generations." But leave your own thoughts in the comments.
And have you ever been a no-show for a job interview?
I've never been a no-show period. If I won't make it somewhere I've promised to be, I contact the folks I was to meet with and let them know as soon as I know. Basic courtesy folks.
I've been on the other end of this too. Seen candidates not show up and then submit an application to a different job 6 months later. Guess who doesn't get considered for the job?
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
It's just been routine in the last decade or so, as I understand it, for employers to say things like "If you don't hear from us you didn't get the job." Or for recruiters to post jobs that aren't available, or to interview folks just so they could say that they did so before promoting internally.
Folks learn the rules of the game by playing it.
Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.
I think it's high time people start talking about their experience with recruiters and how useless they can be.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
If you get scheduled for a day/time that you cannot make, you ask for a reschedule. If they deny a reschedule, tough luck for them. If you can't, you can't and an potential employer that don't understand that is not an employer you would want to work for. But then that employer should at least get a "sorry to have to say no thanks, I really cannot make that specific time for an interview, but thanks for considering me for the position".
Ignoring an interview, or even worse, ignoring an interview you explicitly agreed to (and they possibly even paid tickets for you come to) is just showing how little you care. I hope you get blacklisted from any future work within that enterprise.
And "just basically how things work nowadays" should not be an excuse for being a poor interviewee. If it is it will reflect show shitty employees these people will be. If you give your word, I trust you. If you break your trust, you are useless to me, whether you are my employee, co-worker or boss. And you will see that in order to be successful in your career, you need to be able to trust other people around you. When you can't, GTFO as quickly as possible. That is a litmus test that shows you a toxic environment.
I'm skeptical that there are truly more job openings than there are job applicants. As an example, I can magically create an infinite amount of job openings by declaring: I want to open a medical clinic next week. I need 5 doctors and 15 nurses, nursing salaries will be $7.50 per hour, doctors shall make $8.00 per hour. Wait.... I'm not getting any applicants!! Next, I can create 10 more jobs by saying that I shall need a total of 7 doctors and 23 nurses.
The real test of a worker shortage is to ask, "What jobs are paying significantly more?" Simple laws of supply and demand tell us that if there really is a shortage, then we should be seeing salaries jump. Something tells me that these recruiters are desperately attempting to recruit at the same (relatively) low pay as they always have.
It doesn't make it ok, but is is still the consequence of it.
While I think that one should show up on time for appointments I also think this entire story is "We have been assholes to people for decades and boohoo now they are beings assholes to us."
Yes, being an asshole towards an asshole only means that their are two assholes in the world instead of just one.
I still don't feel very sorry for the recruiters.
If they want to get treated better then they need to start treating applicants with respect first.
It isn't even as if this was a real problem. It is just someone who is faced with an inconvenience and they aren't willing to lift a finger to solve it.
If they really had a problem with no-shows they could just lift the phone and call the day before to verify that the meeting is still on.
This is the second time I see this complaint on Slashdot. How many more do you think we are going to get until the recruiter learns how to talk with people?
I'm guessing at least four.
When you sent in a resume and didn't even receive a reply telling you that you weren't selected.
Yes because sending a piece of paper to be put in a stack with potentially hundreds of others is comparable to many man hours of reading selecting, finely tuning, scheduling, only to have someone flake. /sarcasm
I'm sorry for you if you apply for a job and didn't get a courtesy call, but that's hardly an excuse to go maximum arsehole on others. Speaking of, I have never once had a job *interview* cancelled on me and have never once gotten to the *interview* stage and then received no further correspondence.
In many of the comments, I'm seeing folks equating not showing up for a mutually agreed interview as being a misdeed equivalent to not returning a response to an application. This just isn't the case. Once an agreement has been made, it should either be honored or the party that cannot meet its commitment should handle the commitment with due car; if you can't make it, you should inform the other and provide as much notice as possible.
In the game of employee-employer matchmaking, we should dispassionately understand a few things.
1 - Both sides show their values throughout the process, and choices made will be remembered.
2 - Many listings are semi-genuine - On the employer side, many job listings must go up, even if there are likely employees in mind for the position, due to legal and regulatory requirements. In these cases, employers often do consider applications that come in, but the candidates face an uphill battle.
3 - Many applications aren't genuine - they are filled out because the applicant is required to show evidence of having attempted to gain employment as a condition of receiving unemployment benefits.
The Non-Obligation to Return Initial Communication
4. A response to an initial direct communication is a courtesy, not an obligation.
5. If an employer tells you, "if you don't hear back, you didn't get the job" after a meaningful interview, they are doing you a favor. They mean "keep looking." If the employer follows this message with an offer or request for interviews, they are doing so from a less advantageous conversational position than if they had been more cordial.
6. Without automation, the cost of responding to each application is quite high. Many employers don't have this. Employees should understand this.
In a strong economy, a listing may receive three, ten, or twenty weak applicants to respond to. In a strong economy, it may be hundreds.
After Meaningful Communication - The duty of courtesy grows with the relationship.
7. If the employer and employee trade significant conversation, and send signals that plan to continue to pursue the other, it signals to the other that they may want to decline other opportunities or change how they allocate their time. This is where each party should consider the costs the other party may bear. At this point, either party should expect a signal to the other if the relationship is off.
8. Formal commitments, like a mutually agreed, scheduled interviews, should be kept if at all possible. Either side should take commitment failure at this stage to be indicative of the quality of the relationship if formally entered.
9. When an employer takes too long to return a response after formalities, it is sometimes less the result of values at the company, and more the result of an overly complicated consensus culture or dysfunction at that firm. Take it with an eye roll, not as a grievance.
10. Either party may provide *more* courtesy than what is described above. That reflects a higher standard in that person or organization, and the employee should recognize and appreciate it.
- Regardless of the economy, healthy relationships require continued commitment and care. Though it seems to be getting rarer, we should play our part with the expectation of achieving that aim. Otherwise, in our disillusionment, we may leave potentially great relationships on the table due to our own bad behavior.
What, do you think the company cannot afford to anger the share holders by spending all of thirty seconds to mailmerge an email stating "thanks for your interest, but we are currently not interested in offering you a position"?
Companies have set the standard for communication between potential employers and employees. Now it turns out they don't like their own standard.
The interesting part is, that our company still has no problem finding new people. We put our finger in the air, and get enough people that we then can qualify in 6-12 month on-the-job training.
Companies just need to forget the fairy tale that a recruiter can get them a 100% qualified person. They need to create those people themselves, if they want them.
Okay, pulling from experience, let me lead you through a scenario which I think is perfectly viable, somewhat understandable, and yet shows how silly this is:
- A person applying for jobs will easily apply for a dozen or so a day. Especially if they are sought-after, determined to find a new job, and diligent. Nobody "just applies for the one job".
- That could be happening *while* they are still at a former employer (it's a silly thing to do to know you don't like working somewhere and wait until you leave to start job-hunting). Hell, I do this while I'm perfectly happy with my job as it's the best way to ensure I'm being paid market rates.
- Such a person, if they are any good and choosing their jobs carefully, will get replies of interest from most of those.
- That person could then maybe have half a dozen or more interviews with employers from that one day of job-hunting alone.
- Even if the markets are bad, that person could easily get a dozen interviews a month.
- Each of those interviewers expects to set a time and the candidate to just turn up, unquestioningly. I've had interviewers who were completely inflexible ("Oh, no, sorry, we're doing all the interviews tomorrow. The job will be gone by then"). Not only is this ridiculous if you want the best candidate, it's totally unrealistic and prescient of the attitude they'll have towards project deadlines and days-off.
- If the candidate is any good, they'll likely choose a job from the handful of offers they receive. They probably *won't* wait until the end of the month when you could fit them in, unless the job is something amazing and you go out of your way to convince them (i.e. expensive).
- That means that likely, most of the interviews they get will be unnecessary, and it's rude to waste people's time so they'll cancel. However, while I 100% agree that they shouldn't just no-show, that's very unprofessional, the everyday jobs? Yeah, nobody young/inexperienced/cheap is going to ring around to cancel in time.
It just tells me that the whole hiring process is just wrong. The interviewer is looking for a shortlist of "who can do Tuesday", then wanting to choose from that list and they turn up for work on the Wednesday. The interviewee is trying to fit a lot of people around a busy schedule, pick the best job, handle offers, negotiate, etc. when they may not have the money to traipse across town, and then has to reject everyone else.
There's no distinguishing between "has a job with a notice period and will need a long, drawn-out application process" and "desperately needs something tomorrow and can work whenever you want". Employer want the former person, but the latter availability.
I've always said that, to me, the best interview process is none at all. As in, no formal round-the-table meet with people who'll never even remember the guy's name in ten years of him working there, let alone care about whether he can do it.
Just invite people, at their convenience, to come work on the job they need for a day. Pay them if you have to. Give them the job they will need to do, show them where they will do it, treat them as an employee for the day, and gauge their performance. No pressure of timescales. No stupid arrangements. No huge commitments. And a meeting-of-minds as regards whether they want/can do the job or not.
Likely you "haven't got a guy" who does that when you're interviewing, so you can get some work out of them and see how well they could handle it, and do that with candidates until such time as you fill the position permanently.
But I think there's a hidden expectation that the candidate should be "grateful" and "totally committed" to some company they've literally never set foot inside. That they'll turn up when you demand, that they'll drop everything to come work for you, that they'll dedicate their life to you before they even work for you. Trust me... if they do that, they're probably so desperate that you might want to question why.
That drives the good ca
I see many here championing this behavior with hows-it-feel and shoes-on-the-other-foot excuses to justify it, reminding everyone how it used to be back in the day when recruiters and employers wouldn't bother to notify you that you didn't get the job.
I have three words to address this.
The Golden Rule.
This is entirely a matter of professionalism and respect. Act like a child with some kind of vindictive excuse to justify it, and you'll be treated like a child. If the snowflake generation keeps this up, they're going to find themselves on the wrong side of the technology they adore so much when LinkedIn starts a 5-star rating system to rate the potential job applicant pool . The habitual ghosters will be quickly identified, and will deserve every bit of their blacklisting. Good luck with that 1-start resume of yours. You're gonna need it.
perspective ==> prospective
<rant>
<del>test</del>: test ...broken ...broken ...broken
<strike>test</strike>: test
<s>test</s>: test
It's bloody 2018 and slashdot still doesn't support strikeout... FFS, no wonder the site is dying.
That should have been able to be written as:
<del> perspective </del> prospective
...or...
<strike> perspective </strike> prospective
If the people running slashdot (this week... who is it now?) call you for a job interview, you'd be wise to tell them that you'd really prefer not to work for someone who doesn't properly maintain their software.
</rant>
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.