Internet Job Boards a Bunch of Hype? 538
netglen brings us an article that discusses the reality behind online job sites like Monster, Hotjobs, and CareerBuilder. It appears that, while these sites may try to make you believe otherwise, they may not be the best bet in helping you find employment. netglen asks: "So, is this article accurate in its account on how poor these boards perform in finding [jobs]? This sounds pretty dismal to me. Two years ago, I tried Monster for the first time, and I managed to get a job on the first try. Since then I haven't gotten anything. Does anyone in IT even use these boards to look for a job?"
hrm, I disagree. (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, more obvious, is the job market isn't what it used to be. Sure, it's harder to get a job now than it was a few years ago. But that doesn't mean that monster and the like aren't useful.
Now if netglen said "I compared Monster to my local papers' classifieds, and to the headhunters, and got a better response rate from the headhunters", that would be useful. Maybe netglen doesn't have any marketable skills. That doesn't mean monster isn't helpful.
The experience of myself and others I know is that job boards are better than headhunters, worse than going directly to a company's website. Most of us won't even talk to headhunters- they overpromise and overhype. Now that's irony, because that's what they say about the job boards.
Post a resume (Score:5, Insightful)
Mark
Please (Score:5, Insightful)
No. (Score:2, Insightful)
- non-local job postings
- spam
- headhunting agencies getting contacts without offering jobs
- idiotic HR drone job postings
a resource (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as they're there and employers are posting jobs on them, you'd be a fool not to.
You Know It's a Bad Sign When... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think a lot of people are turned off by the ridiculous job requirements and the blatant posting of non-existant posititions. Most people I know have gone back to what works best:
Networking with people you know.
A friend of mine is leaving her job next week. We've already talked about her bringing me on board if things look good from the inside.
Of course it's a fraud, unless you work in IT (Score:5, Insightful)
And to justify the loss of your salary when your boss catches you.
Last Resort (Score:5, Insightful)
When a job opens up, first they look internally for someone to fill it, then they go off a referal basis (and at this time, who doesn't have a few friends that are unemployed IT workers?), then they look locally in papers and such...
THEN they go out to a place like dice to find a job.
The market isn't "good enough" for them to work well. The market is a lot better than last year, but needs to build back up to happier times before places like monster will get you a job fast.
We throw out 2000 apps a month (Score:2, Insightful)
I think (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly;
Does anyone in HR use these boards to look for an employee?
Missing some Key Data... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, there is one key facet missing. Many of us, myself included, see jobs listed on Monster.com and the like. We THEN go to our friends and say "do you have a contact at company X, they have a job posted, and I'm interested." So, with a little luck, your social network works, and you end up finding out a bit more about the company. You also end up putting your resume in through that person, instead of through Monster et al. So, what does this mean? It means that Monster.com did its job in alerting you to the availability of a position. But the "statistics" cited by Mr. Headhunter would show that you got your job through a personal referral.
Bad statistics lead to bad results.
Thalia
Re:Craigslist (Score:3, Insightful)
good if you are fishing (Score:2, Insightful)
I used these sites (monster and dice) in 2001 when I was thinking about leaving Razorfish as business development suddenly got difficult and we were shedding people by the hundreds. At this time I wanted to get out, but I was not in a rush, so I put my resume out there and searched on a fairly regular basis.
The searches were not terribly effective (signal to noise), but eventually some head hunters picked up on me and found a very good match based on my skill set. (The market was flooded with out of work Java programmers and perl jockeys; I was looking for some place to do plain old C programming).
Both the head hunter and my eventual employer remarked that my resume stood out because it was well-written and it looked like I wrote it myself rather than having been manhandled by a desperate head hunter.
Having also been on the hiring side for scores of hiring decisions throughout my career, I cannot over emphasize the importance of quality organization, writing, and formatting in your resume.
Often jobs are posted that don't exist (Score:2, Insightful)
More to do with job market (Score:3, Insightful)
When the job market is slow, a job board like that is not the best place to be hunting. Phone, mail and sneaker net beats them right now.
Re:Craigslist (Score:2, Insightful)
With small mailing lists, employers don't get deluged with resumes of people "job surfing". And, by the same token, most of the time the listings are placed by the person doing the hiring (not HR), so the applicant knows his resume is going to the right person.
During my most recent job search, I used Monster, Hotjobs, a headhunter, and a number of lists like Craigslist. I got the most, relevant interviews from the latter, though the headhunter was close. Even though I applied for ~300 jobs on Monster and Hotjobs, I didn't receive 1 interview. The job I ended up taking I found on a list for people who are interested in startups in my area. I think using resources like that (and networking) are a much better option than a bulk job listing site like Monster; for the hiring company and the candidate.
Re:Worked for me (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:hrm, I disagree. (Score:3, Insightful)
I indescriminantly send my resume to recruiter I can, if my skills match what they're looking for or not. I get a lot of calls from confused recruiters, but after about a month of doing it for six to ten hours a day, I usually end up getting my resume into the right hands, or hopefully several pairs of right hands. Works every time. Just takes a little patience. There's a lot of competition out there these days.
Re:Craigslist (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:hrm, I disagree. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't take most job postings seriously (Score:3, Insightful)
Their hiring policy was that any job posting HAD to be posted publicly for at least 48 hours, and they used Monster.com for this purpose. In that time period, they recieved about 90 resumes for my position.
How do I know this? It was my job to sort my boss's email and print them out.
There was absolutely no intention to read any of these resumes or invite anyone for an interview. I stopped taking online job searches seriously after this experience.
As an off-topic post-script:
Six months to the day after I was hired, I was laid off because my job was automated. Actually, it was at my six-month evaluation... after taking most of my work away from me, the new manager stated that I didn't seem to be "working out" the way they expected. I found out later from a coworker that they never intended to hire me in the first place, as they always intended on automating my position, but the "offshore" programmer that they hired to write the program that automated my job, took longer than they expected. If they kept me on beyond the six months, I would have to get severance pay!
These new automated reports were skimpy and full of errors, but only a handfull of people actually read them... so it really didn't matter to anyone.
I like to imagine that there was once a time where people weren't so disposable... but I'm sure that's not true.
As someone who hires a few IT staff each year (Score:3, Insightful)
Recipe for disaster. (Score:3, Insightful)
"I indescriminantly send my resume to recruiter I can, if my skills match what they're looking for or not. I get a lot of calls from confused recruiters, but after about a month of doing it for six to ten hours a day, I usually end up getting my resume into the right hands, or hopefully several pairs of right hands. Works every time. Just takes a little patience. There's a lot of competition out there these days."
Combine that with "HR has to keep all resumes on file for $FOO years" and the only people who are happy are the document management and NAS salespeople.
You might also get struck by lightning.... (Score:2, Insightful)
I use job listing websites to harvest local company names. When it's time for me to job hunt, I'll actually go to the company's web site, and look at their most up-to-date job listings. Then, I'll make an ACTIVE effort to apply for jobs that are presented. If the company sounds particularly compelling, but doesn't have any openings listed, I'll contact them expressing interest anyway. Just because they don't have a particular job listed at this very moment doesn't mean you can't get it. They might realize, "Oh hey, we COULD use someone to do that."
Of course, I'm a grad student right now, so what do I know, right?
Really, at this point, this IS all guesswork on my part, but I like to think that I make sence *grin*. I'm interested in hearing about what other people have to say about the relation between job-hunting effort, and job-hunting success.
All worthless (Score:3, Insightful)
An example of the FEW IT jobs listed via online job-sites and print media:
1) C++ Programmer, 5+ years experience, BS degree in related field (all required - very clearly states do not apply if you don't have atleast the experience stated).
Payscale: $10 an hour! WTF! You can make TWICE that driving a FORKLIFT!
2) System admin, must have 10+ years experience in a 'large scale san architecture,' BS required
Languages required: C, VB, Java, Perl
Payscale: $45k/year + benefits
(Not _horrible_ - but for those skills and the level of responsibility - that's pathetic.)
3) Wireless Administrator, BS in related field required, 5+ years wireless administration experience, C/C++, VB
Payscale: 55k + benefits (Again, not horrible but for the experience required that is pathetic pay. As well, this company is the _ONLY_ wireless access provider within almost 400 miles. This job has been open and being ADVERTISED for OVER 7 months now. LoL. I'll bet they've spent 55k advertising it - it's in EVERY Sunday paper through FOUR publications - as well as on careerbuilder.com, hotjobs.com, dice.com, monster.com and probably others.)
Those are just about the only jobs posted within 100 miles of where I live... There have, however, been two oddball positions advertised just recently, both by FedEx;
1) Computer Operator - basically just requires some past experience in IT and a HSD.
Payscale: $45k / year + benefits
Very competative salary for the position in this area.
2) IT Director - BS +2 years management experience required, a few other little 'prefered' notes - etc...
Payscale - "up to" $135k/year + benefits "DOE"
An extremely competative wage for this area. Most executive officers in this area would envy that salary. The downfall, however, to this position -- is that it's located 60 miles in the middle of FREAKING NOWHERE! Literally 'in the mountains.' You would either drive 2 and 1/2 hours to get to work each day, from the 'closest [town],' or live deep in the mountains.
IMO, a great plus. But a major turnoff to many geeks.
All in all, as many here have already stated - it generally seems IT jobs are a behind the scenes deal. They are all being taken up by insiders, whether it be within the company or a friend of someone who works there.
Networking seems to be the way to discover these positions. Being that I just relocated to the area I am at, this is impossible for me -- as I simply do not know anyone here.
What I ended up doing was making a rolodex of HR managers to contact on a weekly basis - and scheduled out contact times to continue contact with a list of local companies until a position comes open. I have found this to be an extremely successfull method.
Relying strictly on traditional publications, staffing firms, and online job-sites -- in my experience -- will not produce results. The jobs that make it that far through the vicious IT cycle are trash jobs that no one wanted.
This, of course, is merely my opinion -- and is obviously reflective only of the area I live in.
Re:From the other end... (Score:1, Insightful)
That's what I say to people that claim headhunters are going to die off. They serve a useful purpose: to weed out the morons.
Companies should ask themselves how much your time is worth going through all those resumes. Did you spend 2 hours a day for a week sorting through them? Did you just end up frustrated?
Course some of the headhunters charge ridiculous amounts, like 15% of the yearly salary. They should cut that rate down to $1k for a $50k a year job and make it up in volume. At that rate a headhunter has to place two people a week to make $100k for the company, which could support him.
Headhunters and Jobs Boards (Score:5, Insightful)
Headhunters are a weird lot. First of all, they don't care a lick about the job seeker. They are after employers. Quite often a headhunter will get a lead on a job from an employer. When this happens they will then run around and try to find a list of candidates that will fit the job.
In this regard, posting your resume on a job board is not a bad thing. If you have a good clean resume with the right keywords, there is a chance that a headhunter with a legitimate job will find you. Anyway, having realised that headhunters work for employers and not for me, I've learned that they can provide a legitimate service.
Headhunters are nice if you're already working ... (Score:2, Insightful)
If I was unemployed, I'd give monster & hunters a try, but would expect little out of them - your best bet by a mile is contacts.
The Web has replaced the help-wanted in the paper (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the laws and corporate policies driving this segment of job listings has little to do with actual hiring. Instead, they are used to justify H1B hiring, selection of internal people for specific positions, elimination of positions, etc. In other words, there is good reason to treat most job listings on the web and in the help wanted section as suspect at best.
If you are serious about your job hunt, then you really do need to focus on the one proven technique that continues to work, even during the current depression in the software market. That technique, and this should be no surprise, is NETWORKING.
Use the websites as a contact point where you might make contact with someone with whom you can network. But, there are many other places that are effective for networking... and since many of them have a more personal element (voice on the phone, handshake in person), they tend to be more effective. This is not to say that you should not try the websites, only that they should be one part of a broader effort.
Re:hrm, I disagree. (Score:5, Insightful)
He applied via the boards and heard nothing. Applied again because damn, if he wasn't worth a callback on THIS opportunity, the universe is essentially... wrong. Three times, still nothing. Emailed direct, called on the phone, and FINALLY got an interview. He aced it of course and they hired him. But you know what? even though they reposted the job 2 or 3 times (and he re-applied every time they did) when he came in for the interview they had never heard of him before.
99% applications from monster, careerbuilder and all their kind go straight to
out of 200+ carefully selected applications over the past 6 months to carefully selected postings where I was definitely qualified, I have gotten 3 callbacks from headhunters, and zero from actual employers. Zero.
I use all the tricks. custom resume, custom cover letter, choose carefully, etc. It doesn't matter. When this article cites statistics like "monster has a 3.6% hire rate, compared to 70% hire rate through referrals" I believe it because I've lived it.
So post your resume, but don't expect anything to come of it. spend more time on your personal networking.
Watch out, if you're currently employed (Score:3, Insightful)
Submit your resume the old-fashioned way... (Score:1, Insightful)
I heard from many of the recruiters that dealt with toward the end of the dot com boom that they received so many resumes by email thru all of the job boards that all they used to do is look for people they knew. Having access the resumes myself, I could see that some of these companies received 100+ resumes a day. No recruiter is going to sift thru that many resumes. Some of the other products that look for keywords, etc are useless too.
Set yourself apart from others, fax or snail mail your resume.
Some job postings dont give any clue as to the person or company whos job is listed, but with a little time and effort, you can find it.
Re:hrm, I disagree. (Score:3, Insightful)
After my company closed their doors, I pretty much only used monster and was offered several positions. Every week I modified my resume, trying to find the "right one". It took 6 weeks before I started getting the interview offers. In just 8 weeks I had 4 job offers. I only had 3 years experience, and a degree in an unrelated field.
The most important thing is this: it is not a passive job search! You cannot expect them to just come to you! I spent 6-8 hours 3-5 days a week proactively looking on the boards sending out applications. I must have sent out over 30 relevant custom resumes with custom cover letters. I also looked in 4 different states, and had offers in 3 of the 4. My home state being the one with 2 offers...and the midwest (were I am) is not exactly a shining becon of technology positions.
I received a lot of contacts with headhunters from Monster, and even with them, if you do not follow up with them, they are no help. Even if the first headhunter doesn't plant you a job, every week or so, shoot them an email letting them know you are still looking, and ask if they know of anything else.
Also, use (as in abuse) the headhunters. They are great at giving resume pointers, and interviewing tips and good for interviewing practice. If nothing else, they help better yourself for that position you desperatly want.
Re:My Personal Experience (Score:3, Insightful)
One quote I found interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
One quote I found really interesting:
Hiring managers were asked what recruiting tool they found most effective. Echoing the job hunters of the previous year, managers said that "word of mouth referrals" were the best source of hires (62%). Meanwhile, the HR folks -- the people who buy online job ads -- said such personal contacts were the worst recruiting tool. So, who's right?
One of the job hints that one frequently sees is "try to bypass HR and go directly to who is in charge of the department where the position you want is" It seems that HR frequently is seen by managers and employees as a roadblock for hiring the best employees.
It seems true - and in my experience, interviews by people who are in the department where you would work are generally more comfortable, and more likely to ask you questions that seem relevant rather than "if you were an animal what type would you be" questions.
I work at a college where I used to be a student. I know that when another student was hired, his manager had to argue for his hiring, and was accused by HR of "trying to create a position for him" - despite the fact that he was filling a position for someone who had retired - and been working as a contractor in the postion for several months.
Dave Barry once parodied the old "avoid HR" job hunting quote by saying HR never wants to hire anyone because they just know they will be employees who never fill out their healthcare forms right
This all does make me wonder about the disconnect between how HR percieves itself compared to the negative light it seems to be seen in by employees, potential employees, and managers of other departments.
Re:SERIOUS flaws in your argument (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:hrm, I disagree. (Score:3, Insightful)
What finally worked for me was aggressively working my personal network of IT people I had met over the years. After only about a month of that, I had two offers to choose from, both for jobs that had never been published in any newspaper or website.
Truth has been told here!
I'd mod this up, but it's already +5, so I'll reply.
In all my years as an adult, I've never once gone to a "job board" or a "head hunter". I've always worked as a consultant, and I've always worked by referral and personal contact.
Job placement agencies give you meniality. Direct contact and referrals get you the gravy jobs that pay nicely, where the people you work for appreciate your efforts. These jobs are *never* in a newspaper or online site. They are filled by somebody competent with a positive referral long before anybody gets desperate enough to post a job request!
It's the idle conversations after a conference; the golf game last Saturday; the phone call between friends at 8:30; the card club that meets on Thursdays. That is where names get passed around, cards get exchanged, notes get written on napkins, and carefully folded and kept in the wallet.
That is where the real recruitment occurs.
Re:Headhunters that find you (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, I feel this jobless recovery is a reaction to the extreme sellers market and financial excesses of the gilded ages of the internet boom.
Some things are best left in our history.
Re:Getting your foot in before the job is posted (Score:4, Insightful)
I've used the same technique to get my last few jobs, and all were good and in my field:
Use the yellow pages.
1) Look for companies that do work in the field you're interested in, and find contact details
2) Call them all and find out who makes hiring decisions
3) Send resume with cover letter to that person, specifically comparing projects you've done with projects they've done if possible
4) Starting from best company to worst, go to the offices IN PERSON and talk to the decision maker. It's not an job interview, which means you're the only one they'll be talking to, but they're not the only one you're talking to. This means they're not in a position of authority over you, and you can command some respect from them.
5) Contact them again by phone the day after you've spoken to them to thank them and let them know that you're interested in working there, and call them back again to check up once you've covered every business in town.
You don't need to know anyone to use this technique, and the longest it's taken me to get a GOOD job this way is 2 months.
Bottom line is, ppl hate going through all the bullshit of advertising and interviewing. If you give them the opportunity to avoid doing so, they will take it.
Oh, and another good thing to do once you get a job is call every other person you spoke to and tell them thanks for speaking to you, but you're not looking any more. That will really make you stand out in their minds, and if they're still there next time you need a job, they'll remember you in a very positive way.
Re:Also not the best bet for finding employees (Score:3, Insightful)
The right way to make these people go away is to call them back and tell them you're not interested. If someone calls you several times they might just assume their messages are getting lost in voice mail.
They might just assume that if you had made a decision, you'd do them the courtesy of returning their call, and your not doing so was because you were busy or something. Crazy, huh?