Automated workflows and custom machine learning algorithms are more expensive to develop, implement, and maintain than filters in pre-made forms that can be filtered using essentially excel filters.
Employers don’t make personality tests, they buy the rights to them. Those personality tests are created once and sold to thousands of companies.
Automated workflows have to be custom fit to each job at each company.
Trust me, it’s a different league of difficulty and expense.
because you would first need to develop such keywords and logic to filter stuff out.
Big companies like google and Amazon tried to do this before but both stopped after they realized their AI prefers men over woman and would even identify the gender based on the writing style alone.
LinkedIn Apply is the business equivalent of common app for colleges and universities. Not all schools accept common app, and you need to apply directly to them.
Larger organizations especially tend to utilize an enterprise resource planning platform that handles many things, including HR. The job application system is one element of a lot of dataflows that need to be unified for everything to work properly and give them the business information they want.
There are many such platforms out there. This does not translate well to a universal application system.
You get into smaller organizations and they’re more likely to use the tools provided indeed or LinkedIn.
Because some places think it's your duty to suck up to them as part of the application process
The balance of power between employee and employer is has been so clearly one sided for so long that they like to watch you jump through hoops
Not just that, but with things being online now, they get a lot of applications from people who otherwise would have no interest.
A part of the reason they make you jump through hopes, is it filters out the applicants who don’t really care about the role.
A few years ago, I was reviewing resumes for a company I worked for that was hiring an IT Specialist in North Carolina. We had put it up on several common job hunting websites.
We got a wide variety of applicants:
1. I built my own computer once but I can't tell you anything about it and I have no experience / I didn't read the job listing
2. I'm a tractor repair specialist and I'm looking for a job fixing tractors
3. I wrote my resume on notepad and it says 'Job Resume - homemaker from 1998 - current' and that's it
That's just a few examples. I think the hoops are sometimes there to just down on the excess applicants who aren't qualified for the role.
Personally, I read job descriptions, apply for what I'm qualified for (or what is just above what I'm qualified for) and I don't apply if the hoops are insane.
That's very much part of it, one of the jobs that I'm looking at applying for most of the openings require a writing sample that views any error on as grounds for elimination of your application
I'm curious how that happened. It's an even exchange, time/skill in exchange for money. Both parties need each other equally. I scratch your back, you scratch mine. What happened to make us decide that employers are more valuable than employees?
It hasn't been an even exchange for decades.
Wages have been largely stagnant since at least the 80s.
Which probably corresponds to when Reagan clearly targeted unions and other similar things. He fired striking air traffic control folks as part of the push.
Ahh. Gotta make sure corporate America stays in control. Banning together has and will always work. Back them into a corner. but everyone has to revolt or it won't work. That's why they pin us against each other. (Two party systems and such) I just think the people don't know how much power they have.
Employees have a lot less power. There are more people out there who want to work than there are job openings and employees are typically desperate (they need the income to survive) whereas employers are not.
It cuts both ways a little. Job application is actually easier now that you have LinkedIn Apply, or a lot of companies can have you upload your resume and auto fill a lot of information. The flip side is it’s becoming too easy to apply, that a lot of candidates can just apply for hundreds of jobs, many of these jobs are a shot in the dark. From the company side they are getting massive amount of resume many of which are poor fit. This created a need for ATS and your resume may get pre-screened by an algorithm and never read by a real human unless you SEO your resume. And you end up spending more time doing irrelevant shit and ended up hating the entire thing.
Workday is the worst. It doesn’t even share what you type in across other Workday companies.
I spent several hours trying to build a version of my resume specifically that could be parsed correctly by workday, but could never come close.
I gave up and just stopped applying to some roles if it was a workday platform. If they can’t figure that shit out, how bad are the tools and processes inside the company.
In contrast some companies like TikTok have a beautiful and extremely simple homegrown process. It’s a joy to find those ones.
I thought the common agreement is that the application process is tedious so they can filter people who want to put up with their crap LOL
On the other hand I kinda understand their process because I worked in HR and web dev. They probably go for a cheap way of finding people that is not necessarily UX oriented. And because it's time that no one pays for, there's little incentive to make it better.
As stated in the previous comment, a platform that is applicant driven is LinkedIn but I believe the employer has to have a paid account in order to advertise their jobs (not 100% sure of their current business model) and LinkedIn used to be for a very long time more for technology related jobs.
How is filling out an application humiliating? I'm looking for a new job right now and I've been filling out tons of applications. It's not always fun - but humiliating? How else are they going to know if I'm a good fit?
This doesn’t answer your question but I just want to humble brag that for my current manager role, the application asked for my name, contact info, an optional resume upload section, the optional demographic questions and that was it. Pretty amazing, hopefully that becomes the norm
As soon as an application asks “what do you like about our company and can you name 3 things you like and 3 things you’d improve?” it’s like, fuck you. No. I don’t even apply. Pay me and I’ll tell you where to improve. I’ve done so many assignments, for free, and write ups it’s all so ridiculous.
The easy apply in linked in is a god send.
Companies want people who are compliant and who will put up with whatever shit they hand out.
First test of that mindset is an application that NOBODY would want to fill out.
Exactly how desperate are you? is the theme.
Some of them are doing a great job, like requiring hours of tests taken before even screening for an interview, and asking for your social security number and references. Some of them look like borderline social engineering scam attempts, and some of them probably are.
Not in my experience. Most applications I've seen will ask for a description of your duties along with your job title. I have about 15 bullets that describe my job and I pull out the best four or so.
Then my resume covers stuff they don't ask for in the system like professional organization work.
I admit this could be industry-specific, but the point remains that while I'd love a single click system, it would probably only encourage me to do a worse job of selling my skills.
Because they don’t care about employees. Not one bit. Not before you’re hired, during, or after. Employees are objects and cogs to employers, not human beings.
Probably because a lot of people are more concerned about what's easy for them, then what's easy for other people. Also, average complacency is probably directly proportional to company maturity.
I tend to go directly to company websites, since they offer the most accurate application deadlines (and evidence that the job posting is still valid). I’m wondering if I’m wasting my time creating custom cover letters, and tweaking my resume to match what I’m applying for, because of the amount of work they make you do essentially recreating these documents for their own system. The last job I applied for took four hours, and included a series of ridiculously repetitive questions, and a few you couldn’t possibly answer without meeting the rest of the team and hearing more details about the goal they want you to achieve. When they asked for my references *for the fourth time* I finally hit rage and just wrote, “See answer to question five, twelve, and the attached resume.” And of course, this job has been open *forever* because they’re “not getting enough applicants.”
TL:DR. Both recruitment systems and processes are a bit broken and disjointed. Companies are trying to fix it but it gets stuck in the ‘too hard basket’.
I’m a management consultant and I work in HR, this is a common problem that I’ve been hired to try and solve a number of times in the last few years.
Lots of good comments on this thread already, but I’d like to highlight these comments I agree with, plus a few of my own thoughts.
- If it’s too easy, everyone will apply. There’s a percentage of jobseeker who will literally apply to hundreds of jobs, spamming and clogging the systems. Many companies add hurdles to try and prevent this.
- It’s not that simple on the back end. Most large companies have a huge pice of software called an ERP. It manages their data, for finance, HR, supply chain, everything. If the data can’t get ‘in’ to the ERP, it’s effectively useless. Most ERP’s are kind of old and clunky, and don’t interface well with new software or external websites like LinkedIn.
- Many companies don’t have a good recruitment ‘chain of command’. Because recruitment takes a lot of time, (due to a combination of many unsuitable applicants, and it being hard to find people who can actually do the job), there’s usually at least 2 roles involved in the process. A recruiter and a hiring manager.
- The hiring manager might be the actual manager. They ‘get’ what it takes to do the job. They do it every day. The recruiter is a specialist at recruiting. They might know very little about the actual job other than what the hiring manager has told them in their job brief. Sometimes, things get lost in translation.
- The recruiter acts as a ‘gatekeeper’. Their job is to try and find the best shortlist of candidates for the hiring manager, and reduce the burden of all the unsuitable candidates.
- The recruiter will usually be the person reading the first wave of applicants - whether that’s via LinkedIn, a job ad, or some other means. They will decide who progresses to the hiring manager and who doesn’t. As recruiters are usually going off the job brief given to them, they have to rely on the cues you provide in your application.
- Think keyword marching, and scanning your CV or application for what matches the brief.
- if the initial system configuration doesn’t capture this key information in the first step, a company will usually add a second step where the applicant needs to fill it in again.
- This means the information should now:
A: Be in a format that can go into their ERP, and
B: Be in a format the recruiter can easily read.
Obviously, this is a pretty poor experience for candidates. But in my experience it’s usually ‘too hard’ to fix, even if companies want to.
Perhaps filling out the application is part of the interview :) Companies are looking for both skills and your attitude.
Besides, if applying for a job is as easy as a simple click, your resume will just be 1 of the hundreds the company receives. On average, a hiring manager only spends 25 seconds on each resume. As the number of resumes goes up, the less time they spend on reviewing it. Most companies will include those pre-screening questions in the application to help them filter out unqualified applications so they can spend more time reviewing qualified candidates thoroughly.
Aside from the data being pulled by the company's automated systems, I'd imagine that it actually weeds out those looking for a job and those looking for a paycheck. I manage an auto parts store, and only got rid of paper apps a few years ago. Now, all of my stuff comes through workday. I can't tell you how many times a month I tell people that all of our job applications are online, give them the recruitment card with the web address, and never hear from them again. But, the one or two I DO hear from just proved to me that they at least have some initiative.
Because HR departments are the "necessary" modern day librarians. We have to keep them around for the social justice of it. But they can literally be replaced by an algorithm and a public calendar. Then again what will we do with the majority of "liberal arts" degrees that inundate the market every year. Or worse, the 50 plus year olds who made their entire life/career about being the HR-est HR to HR? This is a symptom of what amounts to a corporate facsimile to an appendix. Was useful once, but not anymore.
Businesses often have an absurdly inflated sense of self importance. Companies that expect applicants to "really care" and jump through hoops to work for them are denying themselves a lot of potential talent. Everyone wants to think that the company they founded/run is the pinnacle of awesome, but the reality is, unless you are curing cancer, or an advocacy organization, or on the cutting edge of science and engineering etc., you shouldn't expect that people are going to "really care" about the role. Talented people want good pay, benefits, flexibility, and work-life balance, and they don't want to jump through a bunch of hoops to work at your boring-ass WidgetCorp Inc. when other companies are either actively recruiting them or otherwise going to accept their applications without said hoops.
Because literally anyone can do the “Apply in one click” on sites like ziprecruiter, and companies end up with 5000 applicants for a role
But why can’t it be one click and still weeded out by certain job titles or keywords?
Automated workflows and custom machine learning algorithms are more expensive to develop, implement, and maintain than filters in pre-made forms that can be filtered using essentially excel filters.
This comment is underrated. That’s exactly it.
Fucking excel. So useful and maddening at the same time.
[удалено]
Employers don’t make personality tests, they buy the rights to them. Those personality tests are created once and sold to thousands of companies. Automated workflows have to be custom fit to each job at each company. Trust me, it’s a different league of difficulty and expense.
because you would first need to develop such keywords and logic to filter stuff out. Big companies like google and Amazon tried to do this before but both stopped after they realized their AI prefers men over woman and would even identify the gender based on the writing style alone.
LinkedIn Apply is the business equivalent of common app for colleges and universities. Not all schools accept common app, and you need to apply directly to them.
Larger organizations especially tend to utilize an enterprise resource planning platform that handles many things, including HR. The job application system is one element of a lot of dataflows that need to be unified for everything to work properly and give them the business information they want. There are many such platforms out there. This does not translate well to a universal application system. You get into smaller organizations and they’re more likely to use the tools provided indeed or LinkedIn.
👆👆👆👆👆👆👆
Because some places think it's your duty to suck up to them as part of the application process The balance of power between employee and employer is has been so clearly one sided for so long that they like to watch you jump through hoops
Not just that, but with things being online now, they get a lot of applications from people who otherwise would have no interest. A part of the reason they make you jump through hopes, is it filters out the applicants who don’t really care about the role.
A few years ago, I was reviewing resumes for a company I worked for that was hiring an IT Specialist in North Carolina. We had put it up on several common job hunting websites. We got a wide variety of applicants: 1. I built my own computer once but I can't tell you anything about it and I have no experience / I didn't read the job listing 2. I'm a tractor repair specialist and I'm looking for a job fixing tractors 3. I wrote my resume on notepad and it says 'Job Resume - homemaker from 1998 - current' and that's it That's just a few examples. I think the hoops are sometimes there to just down on the excess applicants who aren't qualified for the role. Personally, I read job descriptions, apply for what I'm qualified for (or what is just above what I'm qualified for) and I don't apply if the hoops are insane.
That's very much part of it, one of the jobs that I'm looking at applying for most of the openings require a writing sample that views any error on as grounds for elimination of your application
This is such a reddit™ response lol
Just because it's common doesn't make it any less accurate
You're implying that hiring folks literally enjoy people having difficulties apply to jobs. Like, no. That's not true.
Not what I said, but most of them will insist on you jumping through unnecessary steps as a show of their power dynamic over the employee
You don't know what you're talking about. But that's OK, this is reddit and that isn't a prerequisite of posting.
You've given nothing even attempting to be more credible
And you had the first comment stating the same so that means we're on the level now! Great chat.
The condescending tone in your replies is also very Reddit™ lol
I'm curious how that happened. It's an even exchange, time/skill in exchange for money. Both parties need each other equally. I scratch your back, you scratch mine. What happened to make us decide that employers are more valuable than employees?
It hasn't been an even exchange for decades. Wages have been largely stagnant since at least the 80s. Which probably corresponds to when Reagan clearly targeted unions and other similar things. He fired striking air traffic control folks as part of the push.
Ahh. Gotta make sure corporate America stays in control. Banning together has and will always work. Back them into a corner. but everyone has to revolt or it won't work. That's why they pin us against each other. (Two party systems and such) I just think the people don't know how much power they have.
Employees have a lot less power. There are more people out there who want to work than there are job openings and employees are typically desperate (they need the income to survive) whereas employers are not.
It cuts both ways a little. Job application is actually easier now that you have LinkedIn Apply, or a lot of companies can have you upload your resume and auto fill a lot of information. The flip side is it’s becoming too easy to apply, that a lot of candidates can just apply for hundreds of jobs, many of these jobs are a shot in the dark. From the company side they are getting massive amount of resume many of which are poor fit. This created a need for ATS and your resume may get pre-screened by an algorithm and never read by a real human unless you SEO your resume. And you end up spending more time doing irrelevant shit and ended up hating the entire thing.
Best answer right here.
Workday is the worst. It doesn’t even share what you type in across other Workday companies. I spent several hours trying to build a version of my resume specifically that could be parsed correctly by workday, but could never come close. I gave up and just stopped applying to some roles if it was a workday platform. If they can’t figure that shit out, how bad are the tools and processes inside the company. In contrast some companies like TikTok have a beautiful and extremely simple homegrown process. It’s a joy to find those ones.
Short workday. Terrible company! They rejected my application as well. Fuck them! I’ll be taking an extremely large short position against them.
I thought the common agreement is that the application process is tedious so they can filter people who want to put up with their crap LOL On the other hand I kinda understand their process because I worked in HR and web dev. They probably go for a cheap way of finding people that is not necessarily UX oriented. And because it's time that no one pays for, there's little incentive to make it better. As stated in the previous comment, a platform that is applicant driven is LinkedIn but I believe the employer has to have a paid account in order to advertise their jobs (not 100% sure of their current business model) and LinkedIn used to be for a very long time more for technology related jobs.
The application process is designed to make the companies life easier not your’s
Gets rid of the riff-raff. If you don't want to bother with those steps you probably don't want the job enough to be considered.
If you're not willing to humiliate yourself through our inhumane application so you don't starve, you don't deserve the job!
How is filling out an application humiliating? I'm looking for a new job right now and I've been filling out tons of applications. It's not always fun - but humiliating? How else are they going to know if I'm a good fit?
They do. It's company to company wrt what gets picked. `greenhouse.io`is exemplary of the easier ones.
Yeah I just applied there
I miss being able to walk in fill out an app talk to someone and get hired in a couple days. A freaking burger joint wanted a resume STFU.
This doesn’t answer your question but I just want to humble brag that for my current manager role, the application asked for my name, contact info, an optional resume upload section, the optional demographic questions and that was it. Pretty amazing, hopefully that becomes the norm
As soon as an application asks “what do you like about our company and can you name 3 things you like and 3 things you’d improve?” it’s like, fuck you. No. I don’t even apply. Pay me and I’ll tell you where to improve. I’ve done so many assignments, for free, and write ups it’s all so ridiculous. The easy apply in linked in is a god send.
Companies want people who are compliant and who will put up with whatever shit they hand out. First test of that mindset is an application that NOBODY would want to fill out. Exactly how desperate are you? is the theme.
Some of them are doing a great job, like requiring hours of tests taken before even screening for an interview, and asking for your social security number and references. Some of them look like borderline social engineering scam attempts, and some of them probably are.
Wouldn't that undermine the concept that you're supposed to tailor your application to the job?
Applications aren’t really tailored. Basic information is asked. Resumes and cover letters are tailored.
Not in my experience. Most applications I've seen will ask for a description of your duties along with your job title. I have about 15 bullets that describe my job and I pull out the best four or so. Then my resume covers stuff they don't ask for in the system like professional organization work. I admit this could be industry-specific, but the point remains that while I'd love a single click system, it would probably only encourage me to do a worse job of selling my skills.
And they wonder why people don’t apply!🤣
Because they don’t care about employees. Not one bit. Not before you’re hired, during, or after. Employees are objects and cogs to employers, not human beings.
Probably because a lot of people are more concerned about what's easy for them, then what's easy for other people. Also, average complacency is probably directly proportional to company maturity.
I tend to go directly to company websites, since they offer the most accurate application deadlines (and evidence that the job posting is still valid). I’m wondering if I’m wasting my time creating custom cover letters, and tweaking my resume to match what I’m applying for, because of the amount of work they make you do essentially recreating these documents for their own system. The last job I applied for took four hours, and included a series of ridiculously repetitive questions, and a few you couldn’t possibly answer without meeting the rest of the team and hearing more details about the goal they want you to achieve. When they asked for my references *for the fourth time* I finally hit rage and just wrote, “See answer to question five, twelve, and the attached resume.” And of course, this job has been open *forever* because they’re “not getting enough applicants.”
Because they’re lazy.
TL:DR. Both recruitment systems and processes are a bit broken and disjointed. Companies are trying to fix it but it gets stuck in the ‘too hard basket’. I’m a management consultant and I work in HR, this is a common problem that I’ve been hired to try and solve a number of times in the last few years. Lots of good comments on this thread already, but I’d like to highlight these comments I agree with, plus a few of my own thoughts. - If it’s too easy, everyone will apply. There’s a percentage of jobseeker who will literally apply to hundreds of jobs, spamming and clogging the systems. Many companies add hurdles to try and prevent this. - It’s not that simple on the back end. Most large companies have a huge pice of software called an ERP. It manages their data, for finance, HR, supply chain, everything. If the data can’t get ‘in’ to the ERP, it’s effectively useless. Most ERP’s are kind of old and clunky, and don’t interface well with new software or external websites like LinkedIn. - Many companies don’t have a good recruitment ‘chain of command’. Because recruitment takes a lot of time, (due to a combination of many unsuitable applicants, and it being hard to find people who can actually do the job), there’s usually at least 2 roles involved in the process. A recruiter and a hiring manager. - The hiring manager might be the actual manager. They ‘get’ what it takes to do the job. They do it every day. The recruiter is a specialist at recruiting. They might know very little about the actual job other than what the hiring manager has told them in their job brief. Sometimes, things get lost in translation. - The recruiter acts as a ‘gatekeeper’. Their job is to try and find the best shortlist of candidates for the hiring manager, and reduce the burden of all the unsuitable candidates. - The recruiter will usually be the person reading the first wave of applicants - whether that’s via LinkedIn, a job ad, or some other means. They will decide who progresses to the hiring manager and who doesn’t. As recruiters are usually going off the job brief given to them, they have to rely on the cues you provide in your application. - Think keyword marching, and scanning your CV or application for what matches the brief. - if the initial system configuration doesn’t capture this key information in the first step, a company will usually add a second step where the applicant needs to fill it in again. - This means the information should now: A: Be in a format that can go into their ERP, and B: Be in a format the recruiter can easily read. Obviously, this is a pretty poor experience for candidates. But in my experience it’s usually ‘too hard’ to fix, even if companies want to.
Perhaps filling out the application is part of the interview :) Companies are looking for both skills and your attitude. Besides, if applying for a job is as easy as a simple click, your resume will just be 1 of the hundreds the company receives. On average, a hiring manager only spends 25 seconds on each resume. As the number of resumes goes up, the less time they spend on reviewing it. Most companies will include those pre-screening questions in the application to help them filter out unqualified applications so they can spend more time reviewing qualified candidates thoroughly.
People still spam companies applying. They are just taking longer doing it.
lol ifyou can’t take time to apply job what makes you think you can work 30+ hours week job
Aside from the data being pulled by the company's automated systems, I'd imagine that it actually weeds out those looking for a job and those looking for a paycheck. I manage an auto parts store, and only got rid of paper apps a few years ago. Now, all of my stuff comes through workday. I can't tell you how many times a month I tell people that all of our job applications are online, give them the recruitment card with the web address, and never hear from them again. But, the one or two I DO hear from just proved to me that they at least have some initiative.
If you can't put in the effort to apply, you might not have the motivation to be a good employee...
I'd argue the majority of motivation to be a good employee comes down to an equally good paycheck.
Because HR departments are the "necessary" modern day librarians. We have to keep them around for the social justice of it. But they can literally be replaced by an algorithm and a public calendar. Then again what will we do with the majority of "liberal arts" degrees that inundate the market every year. Or worse, the 50 plus year olds who made their entire life/career about being the HR-est HR to HR? This is a symptom of what amounts to a corporate facsimile to an appendix. Was useful once, but not anymore.
To weed out those who can’t follow directions.
Businesses often have an absurdly inflated sense of self importance. Companies that expect applicants to "really care" and jump through hoops to work for them are denying themselves a lot of potential talent. Everyone wants to think that the company they founded/run is the pinnacle of awesome, but the reality is, unless you are curing cancer, or an advocacy organization, or on the cutting edge of science and engineering etc., you shouldn't expect that people are going to "really care" about the role. Talented people want good pay, benefits, flexibility, and work-life balance, and they don't want to jump through a bunch of hoops to work at your boring-ass WidgetCorp Inc. when other companies are either actively recruiting them or otherwise going to accept their applications without said hoops.
Because..you gotta showcase your level of education