Job posting responses
This goes out to recruiters and hiring managers who advertise for perm and/or contract positions. It is related to, but different than one of Matt's recent questions...
How much response do you get to job postings?
Dozens, hundreds, thousands of resumes?
How is the quality of response?
If there is a problem, are responders generally under or overqualified?
What forums/sites are generating the most responses?
What forums/sites are generating the best quality responses?
What types of jobs are the easiest/hardest to fill?
How has the job market changed over the past couple of weeks/months/years?
What is the biggest obstacle to filling positions right now?
As many have probably noticed I have my opinions on a lot of things related to this question, but a lot of people seem to disagree on various points. What I am trying to do is get some different perspectives from people on the other side of the table so to speak.
No answers? Is anybody out there? Are these questions that people are uncomfortable answering? I'm not trying to get people to give up any "competitive advantage" or anything... Feel free to comment or not on any of the questions...
I'm with you, wish some of these recruiters would respond. It might just help me in my job search.
It seems like there is a fear of banishment from their secret society if they talk or something!
Seriously though... I'm curious for similar reasons... Trying to understand both sides of the process should in theory make me a better candidate to work with right?
Call them with a LEAD on a job, with contact name, or a to refer them to someone or ten. Ask "what can I help you find today?"
They will be shocked and might call. Drop an email, it is more efficient. they can be on the phone working the employers while you are on email referring candidates.
search their job board and refer someone every time you call.
You will soon become TOMA top of the mind awareness.
I am going to stick my neck out. Please take this in the spirit intended. I am not going to defend recruiters, there are many bad ones, rude, amatuer, money grubbing....
But there are good ones too.
We all face the same problem...trying to make a living in a hostile environment.
Employers DONT want to pay our BIG fees and try to avoid using us at all costs. We are lied to, cheated out of resumes etc too.
The internet has made our job MUCH harder.
Candidates, you too are hard to work with. Admit it, you only use us to get what you want, then forget about us. Have you ever sent a thank you note, or thank you call, or asked "what can I do for you today?"
Have you ever called up the recruiter who helped you and said "there is a job at my company that could use your help"?
No, you take the call from whichever recruiter randomly cold calls and give them the job or lead.
I could go on, but I just want to make clear that the recruiter is working against GREAT ODDS and NEEDS your help.
THE MORE you can help us, candidate referral, job leads, the more time we have to do the actual productive work on your behalf.
WHY DO HEADHUNTERS WANT ALL YOUR RESUMES IN THEIR DATABASE, THEN NOT SAY THANK YOU?
We never know what job we get tomorrow. Maybe the one for you, or the person sitting next to you, or the one getting laid off next week.
This is a NETWORKING business.
We recruit THOUSANDS to place dozens!
We make THOUSANDS of MARKETING calls to get a dozen JOB Openings.
Everything you DO to help us be MORE EFFECTIVE and EFFICIENT is appreciated.
USE THE RECRUITER.
Scratch their back and they will REMEMBER you when a job comes up for you. Give leads, and ASK for leads. If a recruiter is in your market they are GOOD for competitive info. (I have placed one FRIEND 3 TIMES, and about to do it again. He drops me emails every time someone or something comes up. I LOVE HIM...in a straight way!)
THINK OF the recruiters database as a recruiter's personal LINKEDIN ASSET. Your EMPLOYER doesnt own you! You do, and the recruiter is MORE your career FRIEND than your boss! They want to keep you poor and blind, we want to make you better off and well informed about how to improve your life. We aren't evil, just SCRAMBLING for a buck.
Be the SQUEAKY friend to a recruiter who SPECIALIZES in your industry or job function.
Post your resume in my database Please. I won't say thank you, but will drop you an email when something comes up that 1. may fit you 2. is close to you and you can refer others. www.stepbeyond.com Step One Register
I work by the GOLDEN RULE (Jesus' version), which is another way of saying, I do anything I CAN to help you. (It would be great if you would do the same!)
I specialize in SMT, Operations, HR Management & Compensation, and have access to a network of JOBS in other specialties nationwide (so I want everyone's resume in case we get LUCKY...er BLESSED!)
Hope this helps you understand US.
I will now duck and cover...:)
Thanks for your comments, they are helpful as far as general background for candidates trying to understand recruiters... but they don't really address most of my original questions...
One of the things I'm kind of trying to do is get a "temperature" reading on what the current job market looks like from the recruiter's perspective. I know what it looks like for candidates -- the market is pretty chilly other than a few more lukewarm areas. I keep hearing recruiters saying different things though, and that's what I'm trying to figure out.
It is well known that over the past several years, job postings have often generated hundreds if not thousands of resumes, is that still true? Despite that, we've often seen job postings advertised and re-posted for weeks if not months. One would think that given that number of potential candidates that filling open positions would be a cake walk. Is the problem that all of those hundreds of resumes are no good? Do employers just have ridiculously high expectations?
What kind of things are typically causing resumes to be passed over on initial screening? What things cause employers to reject a resume? What can candidates do to present themselves better or improve their chances when responding to a recruiter placed ad?
Oh, I should also have added that it is not my intent to attack recruiters or blame them for the woes of job seekers... I agree that there are good and bad recruiters and that unfortunately it only takes a few bad ones to sour a lot of job seekers on the lot.
I would add another question to your list.
What prevents you from sending a short form letter that says thanks but no thanks? Is it a fear that you will be bombarded if someone knows there is a person on the other end?
It's frustrating from a job searcher perspective to be respectful of a request to "no phone calls please" yet not hear any sort of acknowledgement that a resume was at least received.
From what I've heard most recruiters quit sending out acknowledgments for jobs because they typically receive several hundred resumes for every posting. They just don't have the time to respond to anyone they don't think is a close enough match to possibly present to the client. The exception might be someone who appears to have contacts they might want to mine for sales leads. The latter is just a speculation on my part based on conversations I've had with recruiters who seemed to be very interested in getting my references but who weren't interested in presenting me for the job or where the job was "just filled" or something else.
As far as what generates responses, that varies. I do post positions occasionaly but they usually don't generate a huge and/or quality response. Good, old fashioned Networking is what it is all about.
Recruiters will call just to network with engineers. We may not have an exact need for you right now but may in the future. This industry is ever changing, you never know if you may be layed off and i never know what positions I need to fill next. It is a good idea to keep a recruiter in your back pocket and keep your toe in the water.
I have found LinkedIn to be a great Networking site. Its a great resource to search for the technology I am immediatley looking for.
What has made recruiting a bit more difficult is the housing market. Getting anyone to even consider moving is a great challenge. With the price of the cost of living along the coasts so expensive, many companies are opening up shops in the midwest and cheaper areas. Now if I call an engineer in San Jose and ask him if he wants to move to Texas or Colorado he just laughs.
Posting your resume will get you noticed but not necessarily in a good way. Many companies will not even consider an applicant if they are posted online. You loose privacy over your personal and work information, Loose Time over screening through many recruiter calls, Loose Control because some bad recruiters will send your resume without your consent, and Loose Quality because you are expecting your resume to stand out against thousands of others and without the help of an insider such as a recruiter you loose value.
Recruiting is all about Networking. I can post jobs online, whether its through Door64, Monster, Craigslist, ect. but I do not usually get quality responses. There are so many bad recruiters out there that give us a bad rep, and make it much more diffcult to just network. I make hundreds of calls a day, normally just to check in with engineers. It makes it very difficult and discouraging to be yelled at and hung up on just for asking a question. Recruiters make the majority of the placements happen through referrals and networking, rather than searching job boards or posting ads. We are litteraly doing a free service to the Engineers by keeping them updated on the market and running new positions by them. If you are in contact with a worthy recruiter it is only to your benefit. The companies pay our fees, not the candidates.
I cant count how many times I have been hung up on or treated rudely only to have the same person call me a few months later and is now unemployed. Also remember us not only when your looking for a position, but for referrals. We ALWAYS appreciate referrals. It will also make you much more likely to stick out in our minds when something for you comes up.
I hope this was helpful. I am always open to network so Feel free to ask any other questions.
Thanks for your response, it is very helpful for me in trying to understand the situation we are all in.
I've heard the same complaints about the quality of response people are getting, although I'm surprised to hear you have concerns with the quantity as well. With the large amount of skilled and experienced people around here in Austin, I'd be interested in ways the community could work to try to figure out how to bring up the quality of talent pool. By this, are their particular hard or soft skills that the current candidate pool lacks that we could work to improve?
I think you made a good point about the housing market. I know that it is an issue for me. Despite the rosy picture the Statesman likes to portray about the Austin housing market, at least my area has not fared well since 2001 (when my house was new). I, and most of my neighbors who have been here since the neighborhood was built bought during the height of the previous boom and since many if not most of us are techies (near Dell, IBM, National Instruments, HP, Samsung, Motorola, etc) when the crash came our house values plummeted. Lots of houses were foreclosed on or sold at a loss in 2002-2004 and the market still hasn't really gotten back to where it started. What that all means is right now I would take a loss if I were to sell my house and move.
The past several years when house values in the bay area were spiking a lot of refugees from there were moving to here because they were able to sell their houses there and buy a nicer house here with the equity and have cash enough to live for a while left over. I suspect the current reluctance of bay area people to relocate may be because since their housing market has nosedived that is no longer possible.
I understand your points about networking. I've really been working hard to try to get connected, and recruiter connections are ones I particularly value. Even when a particular job being pitched isn't something I'd be a good fit for or would be interested in, I listen and if possible I try to recommend someone else that either might be a fit or that might know someone who was. I've never gotten paid a referral fee or anything (I don't know anyone who ever has for that matter), so I don't know if my suggestions are helpful or not. I've also referred job seekers to recruiters that had contacted me about jobs in the past.
As for calling recruiters, I gave up on that a long time ago because I never got call backs or got brushed off. The only time I contact recruiters is to respond to a current posting. Other than that it seems like it is best to let myself be found.
Thanks Matt for including these questions in the newsletter. Although I spent years as an external recruiter, I have been working as an in-house consultant to start-up and emerging companies since 1999. This means that my focus is to partner with executives to help them figure out what then need to build out the team, find the people to fill the positions, and how to retain the people when they are hired. Keep this in mind as my responses will be slightly different from that of an agency.
How much response do you get to job postings?
Dozens, hundreds, thousands of resumes?
Dozens to hundreds depending on skills.
How is the quality of response?
If there is a problem, are responders generally under or overqualified?
Depends on the source, but I would estimate I talk to 1 out of 5 responses and only forward 1 out of 3. I would say that un-qualified is a bigger problem than over- or under-.
What forums/sites are generating the most responses?
What forums/sites are generating the best quality responses?
The larger job boards like dice, careerbuilder, or monster generate the most responses but I've stopped using them because the quality is much lower. My favorites are door64, geekaustin and specialized sites or user groups for techncial positions and VentureLoop and LinkedIn for marketing, sales, and professional services. Note that most of our hires come from employee referrals or networking but I'm answering your question for the positions where we do use the job boards.
What types of jobs are the easiest/hardest to fill?
This changes weekly - we couldn't find a development qa engineer for months but now there are great people available. There are currently too many program managers on the market but a year ago they could name their price. In general, it's hardest to find people who have the exceptional technical skills and choose to be in customer facing roles. Start ups don't have the luxury of providing training or extended ramp ups so we're looking for people that come to us with experience in consulting for multiple clients to build our professional services team. Product Management is another area that there aren't enough people that are in the top tier.
How has the job market changed over the past couple of weeks/months/years?
It has been more tentative this year in general. Since Pluck was acquired by DM and will be supported by centralized recruiting in Santa Monica, I am actively talking to other companies and am finding companies that are still proceeding with hiring plans for 2008 despite the slow-down in the economy. I think what Austin is feeling is more related to what hit the rest of the country for the last two years and (hope!) there is enough opportunities to push through.
What is the biggest obstacle to filling positions right now?
This will not make me popular with my peers but too many calls from outside agencies trying to get our recruiting business. I receive at least 5 - 10 calls a day from people I don't know. We rarely use outside agencies so I can't even justify taking time to return these calls. My advice to outside agencies is that if you want to work with a company, find someone you know to make an introduction because my internal peers complain about the same thing. This advice also applies to candidates as coming in through an employee generally means you get a response first!
Thanks for the direct responses to my questions... of course the answers bring up more questions, but I think I am starting to get a little clarity.
One additional question that was raised... you mention that the tough to fill jobs change on a weekly basis. I can understand that due to supply/demand isses, but is there any sort of common thread or theme? Is it a problem with education, experience or something else that candidates or the community can work to change?
Great question ... technical skills do come and go and the demand is cyclical but companies are always interested in talking to top talent. Most of my clients are in the commercial software development space so there is a strong preference on engineering teams for true computer science / engineering degrees over business or computer information systems. The thought seems to be around problem solving skills and engineers are taught to think and anlyze more holistically more than other degree programs.
That said, engineers don't always make the transition to customer facing roles as easily and those customer facing positions are the roles that will never be offshored.
From a candidate perspective, my advice to someone who is out of school and experienced is that if you can't answer the question "Comparing yourself to your peers, what is it that sets you apart and makes you unique?" with confidence and passion, you are going to have a hard time.
The best companies only hire individuals who are potentially game changers for them. If you look around and you are the best person on your team, you need to move to a company where you are average so that you can grow. By now, we all should understand that this is a global economy we're competing in and that means the bar for performance is pushed up just becuase of competition.
One other point ... there's a perception that companies only want junior people and I don't find that to be the case. But companies do want lifelong LEARNERS so show that you can adapt with technology and methodology changes without resistance and it goes a long way.
Actually, lately it seems like companies do not want junior people, they want mid-senior-level people at a junior level salary. Only people who are out of work will be willing to take that, and ignoring the already-working people may be part of the reason that employers complain about the quality of available candidates. I kind of disagree about companies wanting learners. They may say they do, and perhaps they do once someone is on staff, but they are not willing to hire someone based on the person's ability to adapt what they know to learn something new, they expect someone who has already done it. And given that these days many job descriptions for technical folk list 15+ technologies, it is often hard for most people to honestly say they have any depth of experience with all of them. Unfortunately I think that this often rewards the less than completely honest.
"confidence" "passion" -- I think these days a lot of experienced candidates have trouble mustering up those things given that tech workers have faced a demoralizingly bad job market for the past 7 years. I've personally been stuck in a job with no growth opportunity for the past 5 1/2 years because better options out there without taking a major pay cut have not been forthcoming.
Re: "we all should understand that this is a global economy we're competing in and that means the bar for performance is pushed up just becuase of competition."
Just remember hear that the bar for performance is measured in dollars, not in output. If I'm twice as good as the overseas outsourcing people, buy they as for 1/4 of what I get, well, I don't understand. That would be like me going into a professional sports organization and applying for a job. I'm not very good, but I'm cheap.
Hiring "lifelong learners" doesn't mean they are going to teach you everything you don't have so that you will be marketable. It means you are passionate enough about what you do for a living that you stay at the top of your game and can demonstrate instances where you successfully transitioned skills to improve yourself. The very best companies reward these learners with opportunities and to continue to grow.
I agree that the bust was hard on a lot of people and made it more challenging for employees to stay in roles they were passionate about. But two of the three clients that I worked with during the last eight years on long term consulting engagements only hired top talent but paid top compensation to attract and retain them. You are correct that many companies take what they can get for the money, which tends not to breed passion. This is a cycle the people need to be careful for, because over time it breeds bitterness which good interviewers will pick up on. The best time to make a career change is before you need to ...
Let me know offline if you need suggestions of questions you should be asking to screen for an employee focused culture in your interviews. Good luck in your search.
The crash made it hard to stay employed, let alone be picky. I know quite a few people who were unemployed for months if not years.
I'd like to know what companies hire only top talent and pay top compensation, because it sure sounds like the exception. And rewarding learners with opportunities to grow sounds like something from outer space. Most companies seem to be offering in the lower 1/2 of the bell curve on sites like salary.com and will gladly jettison you at the first opportunity to make a few extra dollars for the senior management.
Candidates screen? How can we afford to do that when it is a struggle to even get a call back for maybe one out of every 4 resumes we send and maybe one out of four of those even lead to an interview? For candidates it is clearly you have to take what you can get. Or maybe I just suck.
Seriously... I admit to a certain amount of bitterness, which is why I've more or less given up on my active search unless something "perfect" comes along.
What is the market rate here?
For the last several years, I've worked as a contractor, but would give it up for the right regular full-time opportunity. I'm trying to get a feel for what "market rate" is like for regular full-time employees.
I'm also trying to be picky when it comes to long-term employment.
I'd like to share (trade?) a few data points:
Based on my experience, I reckon that only the last two are realistic for mid to lead level SW developers.
Anyone got some more data points to share?
Thanks
- John
The last two are actually well above the norm for a lead level SW developer. Lead level around here is usually more like $80-$100k, maybe $110k for someone really exceptional or a very good employer. Note that lead level is generally more of an architect/team lead/manager position rather than someone who actually writes much code. Senior level (5+ years experience) is generally $60-$80k, maybe up to $90k again for the exceptional person with a good company. Junior level (2-5 years experience) should be at least $40-60k/yr. Anything below $40k/yr should be strictly entry level, < 2 years experience, recent grads or people switching to development from other career paths like QA (assuming they've got a BSCS). Like anything, there are exceptions high or low to the norms, but what I'm saying is based roughly on the salary survey calculators online (indeed.com, salary.com, etc) which I personally believe to be a little on the high side and what jobs list a salary plus what salary range info I've been able to pry out of recruiters and/or hiring managers over the last few years. Unfortunately it seems like exceptions on the low side are far more common than exceptions on the high side -- I know very few people who actually write any significant amount of code that are making in excess of $100k.
Well, if you are going to get into hard numbers, you're just wrong. I was picked up by IBM in 2000 for $72k as a lower mid level, and by AMD in 2006 at $91k as a senior level. That AMD position was somewhat below market because it was a bit of a shift. These are pure coding jobs, although I did a bit of team lead my last year at IBM.
Hit Indeed.com with software Austin $100000. There is no shortage, if you have the skills they want.
2000 was during the boom, so the same lower mid level nowdays would almost surely be well under that. Most of the people I know who have had to change jobs in the past few years have ended up taking less than what they used to make. $91k is really good for a senior level from what I've seen so you should consider yourself quite fortunate. If you look at indeed.com number of jobs over $100k is tiny compared to the number under that though, and the number of people who are competing for them is huge, so I think there is a glut of skill relative to the amount of opportunity.
One thing to consider about indeed.com is that most of their salary ratings are estimated, so many of the jobs they list as > $100k may not actually pay that. The other thing to keep in mind about indeed.com's numbers is that they count a $50/hr job the same as $100k/yr salary. That isn't even close to accurate in most cases. $50/hr on 1099 is more equivalent to $70-$75k/yr compared to an FTE job when you consider the tax hit and the lack of benefits.
The "skills they want" is part of the problem too -- almost all the halfway decent paying jobs list 20+ skills that they want 5+ years experience with, no substitutions, no exceptions. If you aren't 110% match, no response.
I certainly agree that a lot of the positions are hard-nosed about experience requirements--most want 5 years closely related work with 3 in their specific framework, but that's a far cry from saying that the job does not exists. Also, the vast majority of the jobs I'm viewing are salary.
Yes, the "average" is below $100k. But I only need one, so I'm far more interested in the absolute population numbers.
And I would consider $50/hr ~ $65k/yr.
I never said they didn't exist... in fact I said there are always exceptions high or low to the general range numbers.
You are probably right about $50/hr being closer to $65k/yr... I was being nice when I did the math I guess, or probably underestimating what the benefits would cost to be equivalent. Last time I worked on 1099 (in 2002) I just plain couldn't afford benefits so I went for a year with none.
I'm not sure what your search criteria is, but it seems like a pretty hefty percentage of what I've been searching for is contract or at best contract to hire. It seems like most of the FTE jobs don't list salary ranges so its harder to say what they really pay.
Yes, everyone only needs one job, but the number of jobs that pay well is very relevant when you are in the job market. The other thing that is extremely important is the number of similarly qualified people who are also looking. If you are only concerned that there is one job over $100k and you don't care who else you are up against then maybe you've really set your sights too low... might as well go for $150k or $250k or more.
I agree; $50/hr on Form 1099 is nearly the same as $67K/yr as a Form W-2 employee.
But if you already get your benefits from a W-2 job, moonlighting for $50/hr as a Form 1099 contractor is like getting time-and-a-half overtime. (See my comment Contract versus full-time: Don't get fooled by the numbers.)
Of course, if the W-2 employer paid overtime (not abusing "exempt" status), it could remove the temptation to moonlight and avoid all kinds of related conflict-of-interest issues, including potential technology transfer.
- John
Back in the 1990s I used to pick up extra work like that and make a good bunch of money on the side, but it usually doesn't matter since these days it seems difficult to find many contract opportunities that are willing to work with someone part-time. Generally they want people on site during normal business hours at least 40 hours a week (and in many cases they want them there a lot more than that but for no more than 40 billable hours).
You are right, that if employers weren't abusing things in general it wouldn't be like it is, but its an employer's market so its pretty much "take it or leave it".
Things may be different if you have direct in-network connections who are more flexible, but if you are dealing with agencies, there is very little room for negotiation.
With Austin facing over a thousand lay offs that we know of, the recruiters are probably too busy fielding resumes for scarce openings?
Quite likely, albeit from what I've read a lot of the people being laid off are not in fields that recruiters generally work with... I'd be interested to know what the skill set mix of people who are being laid off is. Hopefully the TWC still isn't telling laid of manufacturing workers and other people to go into IT like they used to. I would really feel sorry for people who got laid off to then invest a lot of time, effort and potentially money trying to get into a dead-end field! Not to mention that it would just further glut the IT job market that already has a large surplus of underutilized talent.