The talent acquisitions person is an HR staffer. Besides me they have to post for everything from kitchen staff to clinicians and I don't expect them to understand the terms in the job description.
3 years ago we brought another IT staff in but that was the prior IT Director who did that one. He ended up going to a temp agencies and shaking the tree for a temp-to-hire job. The staffer was a temp when I started there and I hired him the minute his temp contract permitted me to make him an offer. Temp to hire is not a bad way to do it and I wasn't seeing what was coming in 3 years ago, but I still have to wonder. Good candidates are soon off the market. I started reviewing Resumes the moment I saw the ones coming in tapering off, and literally did all of the 100+ in a single night, I started at 8pm and just kept going until midnight. Then HR started callbacks the next day. The one we hired actually had come in during the first 24 hours. I have a feeling my predecessor regarded the hiring as a nuisance. He had a vision for the department of being basically driven by consulting firms not by staff. But if you give your staff the boring rote stuff to do and sub out all the fun stuff (the complicated stuff) then if they are any good they will get bored and quit on you. At least, that's my theory. As for cost, once a company is large enough, turnover is high enough that it's cost-effective to hire a talent acquisitions person for HR. I know that there's some very large companies that still use recruiters instead of their own people but in my opinion this is poor management. Your talent is one of the things that makes or breaks you as a company. I just think that the biggest problem is too many managers just don't like the whole dealing with people aspect of management. They go into management because of the money and then once they get in the job they find the dealing with people part of the job to be a royal pain in the ass. But they won't give up the money so they end up stuck. Because of being unable to deal with the people, they never get 100% and they are never that effective and get the reputation of being a marginal manager and then never get promoted but they aren't so horrible as to get fired. Subbing talent acquisition out is a way to avoid some of this work, but it's work that is core to what a manager does, IMHO. Ted -----Original Message----- From: PLUG <plug-boun...@lists.pdxlinux.org> On Behalf Of James Tobin Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2025 4:25 PM To: Portland Linux/Unix Group <plug@lists.pdxlinux.org> Subject: Re: [PLUG] Ghosted? Who hired your talent acquisition person (considering they did not understand any of the technical terms in the job description let alone the responses) and does it truly work out cheaper for the company to recruit this way given what you said vs using a headhunter? On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 at 00:02, Ted Mittelstaedt <t...@portlandia-it.com> wrote: > > Yes, absolutely. Of course, I would not expect that they would get usable > feedback but I'd want them to ask anyway. Sometimes the hiring manager is > dumb enough to actually say why. > > Having just gone through this process (on the opposite side of the > desk) let me tell you how it worked from the employers POV > > We posted a job opening. Within 2 days we had 109 applications. Then maybe > 3 or 4 came in during the next week. > > AI sorting was completely useless for this task and my HR talent acquisition > person didn't understand any of the technical terms in the job description > let alone the responses. He asked me for help and I said "I'll just go > through all of them" He was very grateful. > > So I did. I did not do actual counting this is more impression, but this is > what I saw: > > 90% of Resumes received in the first 6 hours were completely inapplicable. > It's like the person just told an auto-submitter "apply to anything with tech > in it" The better ones came in between 6-24 hours after posting. > > 95% of the Resumes came in during the 2 days. > > I started reading through them on day 4. I winnowed them down to 20 > candidates. > > HR then contacted those people are only got callbacks from 6 of them. > The rest were either too busy playing computer games to bother > replying, or too important to call back. <eyeroll> > > 1/4 of the Resumes were from outside of Oregon even though we specifically > stated no relocation would be paid and we needed them to start as soon as > possible. Only ONE of those people put an explanation on the application why > this was - he said his wife moved to PDX and he needed to follow her. I > greenflagged him but he never called HR back when they called him. > > 90% of the applications were not filled out at all. The only thing the > autosubmitter did was upload their Resume and answer the question "do you > have a valid Oregon drivers license because this job involves some driving" > and "are you 18 years old or older" > > Around 10% of the Resumes were actually customized, the rest were clearly > generic with big lists of keywords. > > In other words: > > 1) Most applicants couldn't be bothered to actually fill out the > application online and answer the 5 questions we had > > 2) Most applicants couldn't be bothered to customize a Resume for a > place they were applying to > > 3) Most applicants couldn't be bothered to actually read the job description. > > In short, the quality of applications from people applying for jobs out there > is HORRIBLE. And this is NOT limited to just gen Zers it was across the > board, there were people who were veterans of IT with many years of job > history that clearly weren’t paying attention to the resume's their > autosubmitter was submitting. > > Our job description said they were reporting to the head of IT. My name is > plastered all over the place all ANY candidate would have had to do is call > the front desk, ask to be transferred to IT, and if they had reached me and > even given me the worst elevator pitch in the world I would have told HR to > bring them in for an interview. Because that would have showed initiative > that none of the others showed. > > You have to understand that right now, a LOT of managers regard acquiring > talent as a nuisance and won't go looking for the needle in the haystack. > This is really, really REALLY poor management. The fact is that because of > me doing my managerial homework and HR doing it's filtering, we ended up > interviewing only 2 people and hiring the first one - which I had privately > decided after the interview would likely be the one. So while other managers > are wasting weeks I was in and done with it - just because I put 4 hours into > reading 120 or so Resumes. > > So with a lot of managers HR is left to try to sort through the stuff and of > course - they botch it terribly. So the lazy managers get sent candidate > after candidate who is completely unsuitable. I READ every Resume and when I > saw evidence that the candidate was just "phoning it in" that is trying to > use auto-submitters and technology to save them time - I moved on to the next > candidate. If they are going to do a half-assed job trying to get a job then > I can imagine how bad they will be once hired. > > As for Recruiters, here is how that game works. There's 2 types of > recruiters out there. The first are the ones who just move people through > their office and take their cut, and do it lickety split because it's a > numbers game to them - the more candidates they move through the more likely > they will get a hire which they can then get their bonus from > > The second type is what they use to get C-Suite people. Those are targeted > ones and they contact you asking if your interested in moving to a better > job. Those are actual headhunters, the rest of them are recruiters. > > Right now the job market is soft. So, the recruiters are FLOODED with > candidates wanting them to find them a job. During years the job market is > hard, recruiters can't get candidates for love or money and are flooded with > employers wanting them to find candidates. > > I have personally only used a recruiter once in my life - and it wasn't a > recruiter it was a headhunter and I did end up taking the job he was offering > because it paid a lot more than the one I had. > > But I've always believed that I can do a much better job selling myself than > a recruiter can do. The recruiter has many clients, I only have 1 - myself - > that I can put my full attention on. If I see a job listing I want I do it > the old school way - I learn everything I can about the company then contact > the hiring manager direct. Most times after talking to them they will say > "make sure to contact HR and fill out the application and I'll look for your > name" but if they like my elevator pitch over the phone, I'll get interviewed. > > My advice to anyone looking for a job is to pitch the AI and the > autosubmitters into the garbage. If you are lucky enough to get a job by > submitting 500 resumes via an autosubmitter it's going to take you months and > months and most likely your going to end up with a terribly incompetent > manager who doesn't know the first thing about managing people. Instead you > do it old school - you personally apply, you personalize your Resume from the > job description, and you make an effort to bypass HR and call the manager > directly. If you do this and the manager yells at you for bypassing HR then > would you honestly want to work for a manager who has so low regard for their > staff that they view a potential addition as a nuisance? Seriously! Your > staff is what makes or breaks you, folks. With effort up front you can get > good people and they won't screw you over. Most managers welcome a bypass of > HR for this particular task. > > And as for using recruiters - I get it, the lure is very strong. The idea > that you have a professional who deals with this as their job can do a better > job than you looking for work is extremely seductive. Particularly if > striking up a conversation with a stranger terrifies you, or selling yourself > in an elevator pitch seems impossible. But, nobody came out of the womb > knowing how to sell themselves, or pitch themselves, or write a resume or be > confident in an interview. It's all learned behavior and you can learn it, > too. And right now is not the best time to use a recruiter if you are > looking for a job - unless the recruiter is an actual job coach type who is > working with you on these things. > > And remember - you are competing with other candidates. And most of them are > going to think like you. If you like the idea of not having to do the work > of looking and use a recruiter to do it - they will think the same and run to > recruiters. If you like the idea of uploading a resume to an AI and having > it submitted automatically, they will also. What you want to do is go the > opposite way of the herd, and you will stick out and be noticed. > > Good luck, > > Ted > > > -----Original Message----- > From: PLUG <plug-boun...@lists.pdxlinux.org> On Behalf Of James Tobin > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2025 12:57 PM > To: plug@lists.pdxlinux.org > Subject: [PLUG] Ghosted? > > Hi, if you were represented by a recruiter (headhunter, recruitment > consultant, agent, or whatever they prefer to call themselves) for a > potential job with an employer, would you expect them to do everything > possible to get feedback on your resume, skills, experience, overall > application, and suitability directly from the employer after you'd been > presented? >
