As a fresh grad interviewing for (real, non-internship) jobs for the first time, I'm really surprised at how long the hiring process is. The article mentions 23 days average. I'm currently interviewing for a BigCo where I already had done an internship, so they knew me. After I contacted my former supervisor, it took him 2 weeks of wrestling bureaucracy to open a position, then HR insists on collecting CVs for 4 weeks, after which I got a phone screen. HR lady told me she would be phone screening for 2 weeks before passing on the CVs to the hiring manager who would contact people for in person interviews.
I'm finally scheduled for an interview next week. But really, 60 days before even interviewing a candidate they already have experience with? I'm surprised they even manage to hire people before they are extended another offer. But then again, this is not programming.
Oftentimes, they're lazy (outsourcing most of their job to expensive recruiters and agencies), obstructive (creating all manner of stupid, bureaucratic, red-tape hoops you have to jump through before they'll approve whatever it is you're trying to do), and add zero value to the actual process of recruiting an employee.
Sounds like they are working on job security in the same way a developer does when he make undocumented code only he can understand. Considering how many developers actually think like that, it shouldn't be surprising to see this in HR as well.
Some places where I've worked at, if you fail to hire (say you select a candidate and they get a better offer), you have to start all over at square 1. Square 1 being justifying to HR why you need the position (a multi-week process).
Agreed, but when it comes down to it, that's laziness or incompetence at the executive level. The personnel department should not be given that sort of power; that's not what they're for. It's the CEO's job to make sure they aren't.
Shoot to get another job offer. HR treats you much better when they know they have to compete for you - they'll speed up every step of the process, and they'll be more willing to negotiate. Also, you may end up liking the other offer more :)
Thanks for the tip, I'm also quite far into the process with a second company, and still making calls to friends at other places. I do have a question though.
When asked about whether you are interviewing elsewhere, what should I answer? Be vague and 1 or 2 other places? Or name specific companies/roles? What should I say when they ask what your first choice would be if you were extended similar offers at all these places (it also seems to be a standard question)?
Sorry for being off-topic. I've read Patrick Mackenzie's Salary Negotiation advice post 3x now, and it left me wondering about the above.
>Be vague and 1 or 2 other places? Or name specific companies/roles?
I've seen people take both approaches. I like to be open to avoid coming off as antagonistic, but HR folks do sometimes talk to each other across companies and this can potentially harm you if you're not careful.
>What should I say when they ask what your first choice would be if you were extended similar offers at all these places (it also seems to be a standard question)?
I avoid being cornered into making a promise, but I always make it clear that I'm very excited to work for their company. Always. HR people are adept at gauging interest and don't want to be used by applicants. They don't want to hire people who aren't excited about the job. They know you will negotiate when the time comes.
I found this out the hard way - when I first was in the interview process with Google, it took almost 3 weeks before I had a technical phone screen scheduled. I ended up canceling it because I took another offer. Later on, when I started the process and had the initial phone screen, I mentioned that I was interviewing with the likes of Facebook, Amazon, and more, I was immediately told that there was an opening for a technical phone screen the next week.
I think they base part of their scheduling on how many similar companies are trying to hire you.
Reminds me of the HR department at a big corporation I rejoined after a couple of years' hiatus, only to receive an email a couple of weeks later from their accountants asking me if I'd kindly approve a long-overdue tax form I thought I'd signed off eighteen months before I originally quit...
I thought there are laws in the US about how long employers are allowed to keep candidate info in the system something like 12 months is what I remember hearing.
I'm not sure what things are like where you are, but I have recently gone through a hiring cycle for an engineer and it honestly took this long to gather resumes that were worth pursuing.
How many resumes do you think you need before you begin pursuing the ones that are worth pursuing? The sensible thing would be to start pursuing immediately, as they come in. Especially as in the OP case, it sounds like the hiring manager already know who they want.
I'm finally scheduled for an interview next week. But really, 60 days before even interviewing a candidate they already have experience with? I'm surprised they even manage to hire people before they are extended another offer. But then again, this is not programming.