To the best of my knowledge, my workplace uses a fairly traditional hiring process that's the same for hiring a programmer or a machinist: Resume screen, phone screen, on-site, offer.
I have to say we do really darn well, especially given we're located in the Midwest and supposedly the brightest programmers have fled to the hot markets. One thing I like is that we get a range of ages, which is heartwarming given that I'm over 50 myself.
The thing to do is look around at your colleagues and ask if the hiring process is really broken. It may be that we've all been driven into a panic about hiring, by the hiring industry.
> a fairly traditional hiring process that's the same for hiring a programmer or a machinist: Resume screen, phone screen, on-site, offer.
Some years ago, I was looking for a job, and an employed friend of mine sent me a problem and said "this is our hiring challenge. Try it out".
I completed it, and she asked for my resume, and turned in both to whoever the relevant person was at her company.
She then reported back to me "he said this is the best response he's ever seen to the challenge, but we're looking for someone with more experience". I was not contacted by anyone else.
And years later, when I ribbed her about this, she told me "he regretted that, later".
I note that by putting the resumé screen first, you're committing yourself to the idea that whatever you're looking for in the resumé screen is more important than anything you might learn in the phone screen or the on-site. Do you believe that? Are the phases looking for the same things? If not, is that intentional?
I did resume screening for about fifteen years for different small companies, it’s first because if I phone screened everyone who sent an letter or email expressing interest there would be no time for anything else and I would be wasting a lot of candidate time when I could look a resume and know if someone was ballpark decent and just let both of us off the hook early with rejection (a lot of people swing for the fences with applying for jobs) if this was easily ascertainable from the resume. I am assuming candidates are making the best argument for themselves in their resume.
Agree. Since all of them turned out well, I have only had very few interviews. As such, nobody would see me as qualified to talk about the hiring industry, because I barely participate in it.
> supposedly the brightest programmers have fled to the hot markets
Just another facade perpetuated by VCs given too much money by the market, and tech companies "faking it till they make it" in regards to actually hiring all the smartest people.
You think they would learn that the actual smartest people won't fall for someone just saying "all the smartest people work here ...", and that they are effectively attracting naive people with that slogan instead.
That being said, the high-salaries of SV/NYC/etc. will attract some of the smartest people ...
I don't want to identify myself too much, but we make measurement equipment, so we have a real mix of skill sets. The machinist is kind of an extreme case, but we also have people in general administrative roles, etc.
I have to say we do really darn well, especially given we're located in the Midwest and supposedly the brightest programmers have fled to the hot markets. One thing I like is that we get a range of ages, which is heartwarming given that I'm over 50 myself.
The thing to do is look around at your colleagues and ask if the hiring process is really broken. It may be that we've all been driven into a panic about hiring, by the hiring industry.