Transparency
In a recent blog post of mine a reader, Pradeep posted the below comment:
Transparency in recruiting is a lost art.
Is it an utopian dream or an actual possibility?
What are the constraints that make this currently non-existent? Legal issues? or just plain lethargy?
Transparency is a far too rare in the recruiting process, but if it can be achieved, it is the recruiting utopian dream. Transparency is a two-way street, and if you want your recruiter to have transparency, you have to be transparent in return. Transparency is built in a climate of trust, and trust is not possible without disclosure and honesty.
How do you do achieve this?
For a recruiter to be transparent, they should provide you:
- A history of the position and the team (did people interview before you?, did they not get the job?- why?)
- The salary range on the position
- Where you performed strong and week in the interview and feedback/reasons why
- The list of interviewers, with an explanation of the process and how long or short the day could go
- The level or seniority of the role
For a candidate to be transparent, they should disclose:
- If they have other offers or interviews
- Their strengths and weaknesses with genuine self-assessment
- The salary and compensation requirements
- Their impressions of the interview day
- Any hurdles or roadblocks in being able to be hired immediately
Few people know how to do this well ... both recruiters and candidates. Everyone gets scared to communicate directly, and both the candidate and the recruiter get nervous and cling to the little secrecy they have ... leaving the process as cloudy and uncertain as when it began.
I find it curious that so many job seekers are scared to tell the truth. I have performed over 1000 in-person interviews in my career; I figure the average job seeker has done 15. When it comes to experience and lies, I can spot a bluff just about anywhere. Trying to fool a recruiter is silly.
I also find it curious that recruiters lie. Recruiters are hired to have diplomacy, assessment and communication skills; resorting to secrecy is cowardly and not doing your job. And like most methods of secrecy, hiding the truth in the interview process becomes self-perpetuating. One person bluffs, the next lies in return, and the process continues ...
All this being said, some people aren’t ready for transparency, and if you ask me, it is unfortunate ...
Pradeep - I could not agree with you more.
Jenna
9 Comments
nick said:
Lets not forget the insidious practice of saying what the other party "wants to hear".
For instance, every potential recruit is your ideal "leader who also fits in beautifully into a team"!
The above [expected by a recruiter] is used most often to check on whether the potential recruit is "clued in" enough to fit into the system, i.e. does she/he know what to say in such a situation - social skills!
PatriotB said:
Things are even less transparent during the time after you first apply to Microsoft while you're waiting to "hear back". You have no idea whether anyone's actually looked at your resume, or if it's just gone into some dark corner of the career database where it'll sit forever.
Of course with the monumental number of applicants Microsoft must get, it would be nearly impossible to expect all applicants to get a personal response. But still, there's got to be some way to increase transparency. Maybe on the "view resume submission" page, it could flag whether or not someone's personally taken a look at it? Maybe even show the comments that the recruiter had after looking at it?
Saurabh Garg said:
Transparency is a double edged sword, and I believe that more often than not it works against you if you're being interviewed for a position. Don't get me wrong...I am all about being honest in all my dealings, but it has been my observation that modesty and transparecy rarely work in your favor in the oblique world of recruiting/hiring.
When I first came to the US, I was interviewed by a very big Linux company in the triangle for a short-term position. They were pretty impressed with me and I almost had the job up until I told them that I was here on a student Visa. I believe that the worst nightmare for a hiring manager is talking to someone in the US on a Visa. They were literally flabbergasted, and when I didn't hear from them after a couple days, I called them up only to hear that they had picked up someone else for the position.
I am almost certain that I could have had the position if I had not been stupid enough to tell them about being here on a Visa.
Another example: Almost all recruiters like to hear that the candidate is an exceptional team player. Hence, you have to portray yourself like that while being interviewed. If you're fresh out of school, chances are that even though most of your projects were team-based, only you pulled weight in the team and did all the work. This could be true in a majority of your projects. If you tell the recruiter that you don't believe in working in teams because it retards your performance, I am almost certain that you won't make it past the first interview. So, you have to apply varnish to your personality, and portray a lie...something that you actually do not agree with...in this case the lie that you love working in teams.
Truth is that if getting hired is all about selling yourself, then you are better off not being transparent about yourself, as everyone likes to buy glittering gold.
Of course, I was being the devil's advocate here, and this post does not signify my official stand on transparency if and when I am ever interviewed by Microsoft ;-)
TAG said:
It's easy for recruiter to "lie".
He/She can simply don't know information candidate requesting.
This is easy to do in large companies - designate one person to answer all questions - but don't give him information you are not willing to share.
Even more - recruiter have no any motivation to collect additional information for candidate. It's much easier to tell "I don't know".
Chris E said:
My main complaint about the overall recruiting process would have to be the general lack of feedback regarding suitability for entry-level positions. I'm assuming my experience was typical; I first sent in a resume, and then received a questionnaire via e-mail. I filled out the questionnaire (and I think at some point, I was asked to rank, in order of preference, the three entry-level technical positions).
Without any additional feedback, I was told that I had been selected for a phone interview. I don't know whether my memory is accurate or not, but at this point it seemed decided that I was interviewing for an SDET position. I've since done the on-campus thing, been hired by MS, and worked here as an SDET for about six months.
It would've been nice if, at some point along the path, there had been more attention devoted to discussing which of the three core technical disciplines I was interviewing for; I don't think Test was my first choice. Furthermore, the other impression I've received is that people with CS backgrounds who send in resumes are channeled directly into the application process for the three core disciplines. I applied at MS from a university grad program, where I was acting as a teaching assistant. It would've been nice if I had been made aware of non-core-technical positions such as (just pulling some ideas out of thin air here) documentation and technical writing, training, recruiting, evangelism, and so on.
When I finally was speaking with a recruiter on the MS campus, I had no doubt what kinds of positions I was interviewing for. However, I've never been clear on whether there was some other way I could have "gotten my foot in the door" at MS.
Pradeep U.N. said:
With Due respect - I am not sure I agree with you Saurabh.
Transparency is a matter of personal style and even way of life. Recruiting is just but one scenario.
So if the way you do business is by showing all your cards and playing - then it should never really hurt you.
Ofcourse I am talking as a big long term strategy than a short-term tactic. Maybe there are a few crash-n-burns here and there. But transparency is always good. And like Jenna says - "But are we ready for it yet?" I am not sure.
I agree with Chris E in my post - <a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/leadingtrump/archive/2005/12/03/499814.aspx">http://blogs.msdn.com/leadingtrump/archive/2005/12/03/499814.aspx</a> feedback is critical and the onus is on the recruiter to start the transparency. I have had great experience with this - and tons of crash and burns too. But longer relationships are always borne out of such risk-taking : and like a good marriage - recruiting the right candidate is borne out of transparency.
Transparency i think is required for a long term relationship in the corporate place.
JobsBlog said:
I didn't write this post so I'll refrain from jumping in here and addressing each point ... but I sure do love the conversation going on here. I love that we can be transparent and talk about our areas for improvement, tool
Like Patriot mentions, a key area that I would like to see improved is some way for applicants to track their status. I'd love for us to narrow that black hole. As you all know, I have a lot of passion around making the process more transparent ... but that's one area I'd really like to see changed.
gretchen
Jenna said:
There is plenty to discuss here, so let me respond to a few points:
"It would've been nice if, at some point along the path, there had been more attention devoted to discussing which of the three core technical disciplines I was interviewing for; I don't think Test was my first choice. "
Usually you get "selected" for a discipline based on what groups are interested in you. Likley a test team took interest in you and a development team did not, so you did not have a chance at a dev interview.
"I am almost certain that I could have had the position if I had not been stupid enough to tell them about being here on a Visa. "
I don't follow this train of thought- this employer would have had to transfer your visa sponsorship so you had to disclose your status. This was not a secret you could have "chosen" to keep and still get hired. I have sadly seen people with accepted signed offers that have had them taken away because we could not get a visa.
"It's easy for recruiter to "lie".
He/She can simply don't know information candidate requesting. "
You are correct, I agree. Sometimes this is a recruiter "lie", sometimes it is lazy, and once in while it is true.
Relationship Compatibility said:
In a recent blog post of mine a reader, Pradeep posted the below comment : Transparency in recruiting is a lost art. Is it an utopian dream or an actual possibility? What are the constraints that make this currently non-existent? Legal issues? or jus