March 12, 2012, 10:45 AM —
A programmer recently hired by Microsoft wonders why so many other big companies didn't even bother to interview him.
Randall W. Brown posted (It's not a talent shortage, it's a hiring problem) that his recent hiring made him wonder about the hiring process. "I’m generalizing here, but I think that if I’m qualified to work for Microsoft, I’m probably qualified to work just about anywhere." Seems a fair statement. One would think a programmer hired by Microsoft would be of value to many other companies as well.
How can you reconcile the fact that the HR sites are full of lamentations about the lack of qualified candidates with the fact that Brown got past only two phone screenings? Do HR evaluations focus on the wrong metrics? Are techs unable to communicate properly with hiring agents? If so, who gets the blame?
We like to see how the applicant thinks, and more importantly, how they communicate and collaborate with others through a hard problem.
Jeffrey Erickson on fredandrandall.com
I will admit that there has been a slight improvement in the HR-driven postings in that it has been several years since I saw a posting for a "COBALT" programmer when they really meant "COBOL. ;-)
Ralph Wilson on focus.com
After going on numerous job interviews, I firmly believe that some companies don’t know how bad their HR department sucks!
Enlightenment on fredandrandall.com
I don’t mean to offend, and the projects you’ve worked on would definitely impress us, but working at Microsoft does not automatically qualify you to work at any company.
Stripe on fredandrandall.com
Most of the jobs you interviewed for were merely designed to document the comopany could not find local tallent, and thus they need to recruit a H1B visa engineer for the job (at 75% of the market rate salary).
lifeguard on fredandrandall.com
What's missing in Brown's post is a discussion about salary. If a company doesn't pay the market price, will they get top drawer applicants?