An Amazon recruiter said that his stats were:
3,500 job applications, 50 phone interviews, 8 onsite interviews and ONLY 3 full-time offers.
A lot of people say this is a broken system, while others say that 8 interviews to 3 hires is a great conversion. The real issue here is the 3500 job applications to 50 phone interviews process.
Have you ever been passed for a job at the resume level that you were well qualified for?
I think the process is, in general, broken. Forgetting the sheer amount of competition, but it's the hoops you need to jump through to even get a conversation with someone that makes it broken. I think the shift to ATS Screening online, the games that recruiters play, etc. makes it much harder for qualified candidates to apply in general. And even if you have the right pull, getting flagged requires the strings to be pulled too. I think that there needs to be a way to seriously change the hiring process and improve the entire system. Whoever figures out how to improve the system will be a billionaire.
you make a mistake in your initial presumption by starting at the wrong end.
There were only 3 positions available. The number of resumes they received is irrelevant...could have been 500, 5,000 or 50,000. For 3 jobs, they did initial interviews of 50 people, and then cut down from there...which seems totally reasonable.
The problem is that 3000 people thought they were good candidates...when in reality, most of them probably were not.
I agree with this 100% .. but would offer another follow-on point regarding whether or not there is a "brokenness" to the hiring system.
If 3,000 people applied, and maybe 100 were strong candidates .. the problem here is that you likely have a number of people who are really good candidates as well, but might not have the exact credentials and get weeded out by the machine. To ironman32's point - there is an overemphasis on exact skills and pedigree, when really attitude makes the real difference. If you've got a basic level of intelligence, I can teach you anything. Who wants to learn?
In my own real world example, I once hired a guy who had long-tenured direct experience for the role (trading assistant). It was a disaster... he was a terrible fit for our team, and was becoming a liability. We ended up having to let him go .. fast forward a few months later, and I ended up hiring one of firm's developers to fill the role. . This guy was constantly coming by me - asking about the business, clients, systems, trading, products .. etc .. He wanted it, he was hungry. It was a low risk flyer I took on him since he already worked for the firm.. but it worked out, and now he's one of our senior guys. This guy would have never made it past an initial HR screen for the role.
So I can't say what the solution is, as it is nearly impossble to tell from any part of the hiring process what someone's inner drive looks like. But I would agree that the ease of online applications creates a flood for HR and that many good candidates, including those from non-traditional backgrounds, will fall by the wayside.
Without a doubt, networking is the absolute best thing you can do to improve your chances of getting an interview. Every job I have ever had was through networking in one form or another.
I even landed 3-4 interviews out of college that, on paper, I had absolutely no business being at. I was from a Big 10 school .. good grades, double major, decent intership experience.. but not what these guys are typically looking for... andI landed 2 IB interviews and 1 S&T interview for BB firms... Just becaue I knew someone who knew someone and was able to hand deliver my resume to the hiring manager. I actually had an interviewer who's first quesetion to me (while looking at my resume) "Jesus, how in the world did you get in front of me?"
Now, I didn't get offers on those jobs, mainly because I think at that time I was just not well prepared for interviews .... but I got in front of them.... when if I had gone through traditional channels, my resume would have gone straight into the recyle bin while the ink was still drying.
I think it's broken, mainly from the application process becoming so streamlined. You can now apply by sending in a resume and answering a few questions online, that spurs 1,000s of people applying for jobs for which they fit very little of the job description.
Also, a chicken or the egg problem exists, its extremely difficult to fire someone, and can take years as HR has to cross Ts and dot Is to avoid legal ramifications. This relates to taking more time to hire, as companies need to be sure they are hiring the "correct" person.
At the end of the day, companies (and the people who work/hire there) tend to over emphasis both their skills at identifying candidates and also the candidates ability to do the job. Most jobs now someone starting has to learn away, so its more about hiring a person with a good attitude. I don't think companies understand this point though.
Here's something interesting - I saw two different opportunities on LinkedIn in the last day or two an decided to check back on how many applications were submitted through LinkedIn (Also, EasyApply doesn't help the process). One, at C. L. King & Associates for an ECM/DCM IB Hybrid role (at least that's how the description read), was posted a day ago, so let's figure it's been on LinkedIn and active for 36 hours, already has ~1650 and 687 applications. There was another for an FP&A role at a startup that was posted about 2 days ago, so let's say it's been active for 60 Hours, and has ~1400 views and 540 applicants. Even if we discount a percentage of applicants as entirely unqualified (meaning no transferable skills, no understanding of the work that needs to be done, no experience, etc), and let's say it's 35% of applicants, You have ~450 applicants for the role at CL King and 350 applicants in the FP&A role either are an exact fit or have the skillset to succeed in the position. Mind you, I expect that number to continue to grow, for the most part. If you look at the number of applicants so far for the single position, you end up whittling things down by anything you want, from education to work experience to who you worked for. I seriously wonder how many companies require "Big 4" experience overlook hires from other accounting firms. This ends up dissuading qualified folks without the exact background from applying or, if they apply anyway, end up leaving them in the dark for an extended period of time because of the high volume of applicants. I also wonder what the threshold point is before people stop looking at applications when a job posting is open, or the accuracy at which companies post their hiring needs on LinkedIn, Indeed, Etc.