Sign the client is a timewaster

[GigiBronz]

So, the level of shenanigans on the market seems to be quite high lately, as people are aware so I am trying to help somehow.

Most of the more seasoned people are probably aware but let's get on board the fresher generation.

Banking on the mistruths of the industry: a job that is advertised it is not actually a job that they are looking to actively recruit for.

They might be looking for someone long term or it could land on the cumbersome additional motives they have: doing benchmarking, or trying to get their managers and hiring team up to speed with how to spot good people and practice recruiting skills. (and bossing around as well) for some people it is a reward for their sociopath character so I guess that's a plus.

A lot of senior managers have dedicated time allocated to recruiting although most of the time they do not need anyone to the team.(recruiting is not an excuse as people usually become unavailable 1-2weeks after you actually are able to see them)

HR teams need to justify their existence, recruitment consultants and new systems. It is a lot of this lately as well.

So it is essential to be able to form the right question for the role and not let yourself intimidated. Can't say that I know that part myself but maybe we'll get the more seasoned people around here to contribute.

Here is what I think that are signs the client might be difficult or there is no role to begin with and they are just wasting your time:

- You get a coding challenge before anyone from the client's team get to speak with you. If recruiter is internal might be from different reasons but would still be sceptical. When agency sends coding challenge - definitely waste of time. If someone is not willing to spend 30min to get to know you they are trying to find reasons to reject you/ not actually committed to the resource search.

- Complicated interview process with panel of people. It's difficult to dazzle only one person at a time but when you have 4 it is very unlikely to be successful out of it. Most of the time it hides their inability to work together and make decisions.

- When you get asked about about basic programming concepts without a context, they are not trying to assess your knowledge but reject you on the basis of lacking basic knowledge. It is never about the question but how you control the narrative. Math questions on the spot as well, probabilities. Everyone is rubbish at that and they know it and hence why they ask it.

- Long pauses between interviews. Good people are not available for long on the market. Everyone is aware and nobody wants to miss on that. more than a week between stages I think is too long and a sign there is no role.

- Forget the "two references before I can put you forward" IT HAS BECOME A LOT MORE SUBTILE THAN THAT. Conversation starts from somewhere else, they take you out of your comfort zone, they boss you around a bit. Undermine you. Once you are in a vulnerable state THEN ask you about your current client and push you subtly to reveal details


Generally as a rule of thumb and I think this is a rule to live by: A recruiter with a role is like a dog with a bone, if there is a role you'll hear about it in the first minute of the conversation. (once he is sure that you are not his competition)

[_V_]

IT must be the only profession that puts up with all this crap to get hired.

I mean can you imagine any other industry where you have to take a series of tests, endless interviews, presentations and other time wasting idiocy just to get a chance to earn some coin?

I won't and don't put up with this nonsense anymore.

[vetran]

IT must be the only profession that puts up with all this crap to get hired.

I mean can you imagine any other industry where you have to take a series of tests, endless interviews, presentations and other time wasting idiocy just to get a chance to earn some coin?

I won't and don't put up with this nonsense anymore.

Nope its horribly common in other careers. Its more for HR to feel snooty about.

https://uk.indeed.com/career-advice/...pment/aptitude

[_V_]

Nope its horribly common in other careers. Its more for HR to feel snooty about.

https://uk.indeed.com/career-advice/...pment/aptitude

Ha, I'd love to see a company hiring a welder using personality tests, do a presentation to a large group, online technical tests, etc.

[mallisarealperson]

When I was a ltd contractor I always used to ask the question. Why do you need a contractor?

But for perm roles I have in interviews asked if they have plans to offshore. I want to know if I will have the job in 12 months time.

Had an interview recently and the interviewers had admitted some of the role is offshore at times, I asked the question and they were squirming in their seats.

Also think a great deal of timewasting is, actually very inefficient companies, driven by what ever the latest fad their HR dept has signed up to.
Not met a manager yet that enjoys interviewing.

Also all the usual CV/Sales leads scams agents pull. 2 refs, etc.

[Fraidycat]

A good agent will tell you before hand how the long the hiring the process is, how many tests and interviews are involved.

Even the bad ones don't have much to gain by not telling us if its going to be a long process with lots of tests. They end up looking bad to the client if the candidate drops out half way through. Ends up being a waste of everyones time.

[cwah]

I used to spend my weekends working on some design exercises to present for the interviews. Very often as requirement even before being able to go to the interview.
I decided to stop doing that and missed quite a lot of interviews, but feeling much better afterward.

Same for the 2 references before the present our CV. I also stopped doing that.

Now I'm even annoyed when they ask me where I work. It sounds too much like fishing and I answer in a very evasive way.

[hobnob]

Here is what I think that are signs the client might be difficult or there is no role to begin with and they are just wasting your time:

- You get a coding challenge before anyone from the client's team get to speak with you. If recruiter is internal might be from different reasons but would still be sceptical. When agency sends coding challenge - definitely waste of time. If someone is not willing to spend 30min to get to know you they are trying to find reasons to reject you/ not actually committed to the resource search.

- When you get asked about about basic programming concepts without a context, they are not trying to assess your knowledge but reject you on the basis of lacking basic knowledge.

Having been on the hiring side (in my past life as a permie), I think there are legitimate reasons for these. I've had CVs sent to me, and when I talked to the person it became blindingly obvious that they knew absolutely nothing about IT. In one case, the person admitted that they wanted to work for a different department within the same company, so the IT interview was just a way of getting inside the building. In another case, the person had claimed to have certain certifications, but when I asked for evidence they said "Oh, I don't know how that got on my CV"; in the most charitable interpretation, they'd copied someone else's CV and forgotten to delete that bit.

Based on that, I can see a justification for the "FizzBuzz" test. (I.e. Write a program that will print out all the numbers from 1 to 50, but if it's a multiple of 3 then print "Fizz" and if it's a multiple of 5 then print "Buzz". If it's a multiple of both then print "FizzBuzz".) In that scenario, the assessor shouldn't be looking for efficiency, or meaningful variable names, or anything like that - the goal is just to see whether you understand basic concepts, e.g. if statements and looping. If you can't do that, there's no point even talking about algorithmic time complexity etc.

[BlasterBates]

I've never met anyone in an interview who didn't match the CV, I think that is more the exception. You can actually make your decision based on the CV. The interview is simply to check that they're not an alcoholic or have other major issues. Tests are superfluous and tell you nothing about their effectiveness.

[Whorty]

Don't get caught in a negative spiral Gigi. Most of what you say is your view but is not how things are in reality. No manager in any company does interviews for the sake of it - reviewing CVs, booking time slots with interviewees, getting all the internal interviewers in the same room, even finding a room to do the interviews, all takes considerable time and effort and no one does this lightly.

As for the technical tests before interview - I assume this is because the hiring manager is getting 10+ CVs that all, on paper, look suitable. They can't interview 10 people (I try to keep it to 4 or 5 max), so how do they fairly whittle the candidates down? A test, if it's a technical role, seems like a reasonable option. Some candidates may drop out as they refuse to do the test, some will fail the test, but at least the manager will know that those she/he is interviewing have some skills suitable for the role.

As for the panel of interviewers, well I'm rarely interviewed by less than 3 and at one company (asset manager, based in Scotland who have just changed their name by removing all the vowels) I had 7 in front of me (and I still got the role ). It is annoying sometimes, and can be a sign that managers are not allowed to make decisions without referring to a committee (in the case of the Scottish company), but it could also be that the client can't find multiple slots for each of the managers and so bung them all together in one interview (I'm often interviewed by the 'manager' of the role, but also the key stakeholders who I will be working with to deliver their project).

Problem for you is, if you see the interview process negatively that may well come across in the interview and lose you the role. Call it staying positive, calling it smiling and enjoying the interview, call it brown-nosing if you like, but you're there to sell yourself and your skills and will get paid quite well if hired. If you're not prepared to jump through some hoops to get the role, and that shows, then a hiring manager may think you'll not jump through hoops and work hard if hired, and so they will look to the next candidate.