We used to have the following on our jobs page, to try and let people know what to expect: "If you send us your resume, we'll try to get back to you within 5 business days if there's interest. (We'd love to be able to respond to everyone, but we're pretty swamped with email every day.)"
We realised, of course, that this led to a pretty crummy experience (as your friend found out, sorry!). Not everyone saw that message, and those that did likely still wondered if anyone had actually seen their application.
We recently removed that message from our site, and now respond individually to each email (typically within 24 hours) to confirm receipt and let the sender know when we expect to have reviewed their application by. We definitely appreciate the effort that many applicants go to, and want to keep people much better informed throughout the process (we learnt our lesson on this!). Please pass on my apologies to your friend!
I'm talking about a basic acknowledgement that the resume was received. An email like this would suffice:
"Hello. Thanks for applying to FooCorp. We're currently processing resumes in the order they are received. If you meet our needs and we're interested, we'll be in touch within 4-6 weeks."
The fact that the job sites don't even enable this kind of tracking and behavior is, frankly, very disappointing.
That's my main gripe. I find it hard to believe that the time it takes to send an acknowledgement or rejection compared to the time it takes to read a cover letter/resume and decide on the candidate is that big of an issue. Really, just hit reply and say "Sorry, but we're looking for someone with more experience". Took me 5 seconds to write that.
As for job platforms, they usually give an automated receipt. Dismissal rarely. I still have applications with the status "new", from November.
I agree. If a company has posted a job listing, they are expecting me to take time in preparing a relevant and thoughtful application to them (rather than some generic recycled crap that goes to everyone).
In that case please have the decency to reply to my correspondence both on receipt and later with a decision.
Why should I be arsed to waste my precious time preparing my application if the company can't be arsed to write back either way.
Of course for an unsolicited application it's a different matter. It would be unfair to expect them to reply to every application they didn't ask for in the first place.
I agree. If a company has posted a job listing, they are expecting me to take time in preparing a relevant and thoughtful application to them (rather than some generic recycled crap that goes to everyone).
In that case please have the decency to reply to my correspondence both on receipt and later with a decision.
Why should I be arsed to waste my precious time preparing my application if the company can't be arsed to write back either way.
Of course for an unsolicited application it's a different matter. It would be unfair to expect them to reply to every application they didn't ask for in the first place.
That sort of email only doesn't work if the resume is bad, or like you say, if they have their profile settings wrong. If it's a good resume, a brief email is preferable.
In my job search, I've been surprised by how often you submit a resume online, and then you don't even get a rejection email. It's a true "black hole" in that you never hear back, not even with a "no thanks". I think it's disrespectful of candidates to ask them to spend time filling out an application, and then leave them hanging because you're (presumably) too lazy to read it.
Its common for thousands of applicants to respond to a posting, many of whom are not vaguely qualified. So when a position is filled, its not uncommon to be turning down several thousand people.
Honestly, do you want to send a disappointing email to 3000 people and then deal with the responses? More importantly, do you have time? Remember, wasting time on the wrong problems is a sure-fire way to kill your business.
That said, if you've responded to a candidate at all, much less had an interview of any kind - then absolutely, you must follow-up. Those people have good reason to believe you might be an opportunity for them, and you owe it to them to respond one way or the other ASAP.
Sidebar: the current situation is awful for employers. Some start-up, PLEASE fix this. A job board where candidates can only submit 1 application per day would be a tremendous step in the right direction.
Minus the dog learning to type at the end, sounds like my experience applying for jobs: submit application online to several places, get a "resume received" email, some automated email a few days later to get one's hopes up, and then get that denial email.
I don't want to hear some euphemistic email detailing how I was a very strong candidate but among a large qualified pool of applicants or how the team was impressed with my resume but unable to move forward at this time... just tell me I didn't get the job already and cut out all the flowery soup.
EDIT: The below is correct and I stand by it. Please read the argument carefully.
Let me ask you, as you have opened six tabs and are applying one by one to them, would you like to have your inbox interrupt you with a message you have to spend time on, but which actually has the same effect (after the 2 minute interruption) as if you didn't get it? Because if you get 10 such emails, that's 20 minutes that could have been what it takes to get job (one of the six you were currently applying for) but you don't because the day is over and you go home or do something else.
The below is correct and I stand by it. Obviously if it is a position such as a high-level directorship where it is quite normal to do one such application for 2-3 weeks, then this does not apply.
-----
I don't really get this perspective. It's a funnel. (For both you and them).
You're sending out 30-200 applications per day - do you really want your inbox cluttered at the first stage of the funnel with "Email undeliverable"? How about "Thank you your application has been received"? Well, I don't!
Maybe if I didn't have a funnel but was applying to ONE job at a time for 3-11 days. This is literally 1/300th of the rate you should be going at. 0.3% of the full-time job that looking for a job entails. Sorry, but at this rate how suprised can you be that you don't have one? The proper rate is to apply for 30-100 jobs every 8 hours you are actively on the market, which shouldn't be long.
If none of the 100 applications gets to the next stage of the funnel, it's better to have 0 responses. As opposed to, say, 7 undeliverable emails, 93 "Thank you, your application has been received" and another 93 saying, unfortunately your application was not a good match. Think about it. This is 186 spam emails you have to read insstead of having 0 emails to read before you can continue the work of sending out applications. It's noise coming into your inbox to interrupt your process.
Can you imagine if every single IP that went to your site generated an email to you unless that IP became a paying customer in the same session? But actually, the analogy is more like: every IP that comes to your site generates an email to you saying your sales pitch has been received. And it generaets an email to you if the IP starts filling out the form but does not complete it. Maybe if you have 3 visitors per month. But that is not a viable strategy.
The ONLY possible effect of that 186 spam emails (7 undeliverable, 93 thank you, your application has been received, 93, we won't be calling you's) is that MAYBE you miss one of them that ACTUALLY asked for more informatino (i.e. where you progressed through the funnel).
The ONLY time I want to hear back is where I am proceeding through the process. I have actually, legitimately, missed such emails because I thought they were automated or I missed them a long with a bunch of automated responses I also got.
It's the same at every stage. Getting 20 responses to 20 interviews would be spam. I don't care about places that don't give me a job offer, since I should be spending the same time sending out the daily 20-100 applications.
If you do progress to getting 2-3 job offers, choose the best one, or name your price. If you don't hear back, it didn't work.
If you don't get to here, keep repeating the 200. People, there is ONE of you. ONE. But there are probably tens to hundreds of thousands of companies you could be working for.
do you really want the fact that you can't work for all of them (which is a mathematical guarantee) spamming your inbox?
Let me ask you this: would YOU like to LITERALLY DOUBLE the number of emails you send at EACH funnel step, by writing another email to everyone you previously sent an email to, saying you won't be pursuing it? Do you want to halve the signal-ratio by having the next funnel step include not only signal (ones going forward) but noise (rejections).
This would be like building a web app funnel where half of your "conversions" are in fact thoughtful no-thankyou. That's not a signal, that's noise. If the customer doesn't sign up, that's all the signal you need.
As someone who applied for a job that I didn't find out about until the last minute, when the application engine locked up and didn't submit my application I was quite pissed off. Unfortunately, it didn't notify me that it hadn't completed the application. A friend of mine was working at the company and asked me a couple of days later why I didn't apply, after he agreed to be a reference for me and really upsell me to the boss.
That would have been one hell of an addition to my resume, and it's far more likely that plain email would have worked. Of course, a recruiter wouldn't have got his cut...
Applying for a job doesn't necessarily guarantee a response in many cases. This is mostly a case of companies getting way more applications and resumes than they can handle. Many companies handle this by storing the incoming resumes in a database and searching for potential hires when they have an open position. It of course would be nice if these companies at least sent an automatic reply indicating that they would contact you if they were interested sometime in the future, but an automatic contact doesn't mean much either and sets the expectation that if you reply enthusiastically, you'll get a reply (which is unlikely given the volume for some companies).
You guys have got to tone down the spam/followups. 3-5 email for each job application sent through your service is not only annoying, it's unprofessional.
I love getting auto-replies because a lot of times the application process is to send an e-mail to jobs@example.com. Getting a reply that your resume arrived intact is always reassuring.
I submitted an application just yesterday! I know it was an automated response, but I really appreciated the follow-up email that acknowledges the difficulties of job searching for a candidate. It's such a contrast to most companies that don't even tell you whether or not they've received your application. Whoever wrote that deserves a raise.
Not even that but I'm convinced some companies, like Twitter, have an automated rejection system. I remember submitted my resume online at like 3am PST and getting a response within minutes rejecting me saying I wasn't a good fit for the job (I met all qualifications). So, suspecting it was automated I waited a few days, completely changed up my resume and resubmitted it and it was rejected in less than a minute saying I wasn't the right fit for the job.
Resume submission systems are never good. Always always opt to send directly to a real email address (like in the who's hiring HN threads).
I'd say that you should be able to rifle through 200 responses and sort out the crap and shove them into a folder where they'll get some friendly auto response rather quickly. Even if you go a step further and tag the mails as "not qualified enough" and "doesn't fit the job posting" and have them get different responses based on that it shouldn't take that long. I'd personally consider every unanswered job application bad PR for the company/a mild failure.
Takes about a workday if it takes you 2 minutes/application. I'd guess this can be done in <1 minute though but since you probably have to open an attachment for many I think two is the safer assumption (from dealing with a lot of unsolicited mail).
Is it really that unreasonable to spend one work day per job posting to presort? The task can be parallelized nicely and even delegated down to interns if you think it's not worth the time of someone in HR (I'd strongly advocate against this).
Pro tip: If you want a reply to your application, try to avoid cold emailing hiring managers your resume. Often my inbox has a lot happening, and I'm not inclined to spend time copying your resume into our hiring software unless there is something spectacular about your email or background. Emailing hiring managers out of the blue also will not help you bypass any steps in the hiring process.
By filling out the application form on our website, you load all the information into the form for me, and are guaranteed that a recruiter will follow up on your entry. If you want to send an email to the hiring manager as well to explain why you are so awesome, that's fine, but it's probably not going to help your chances of getting a job any more than just applying.
I feel as if this is an automated posting. I submitted an application after seeing one of these and heard not a single thing back. Is there no way to make sure that the resume does not sink to the depths of the pile?
In addition to all the comments to your post, I wanted to highlight this sentence: "Most of the time they get no reply from these companies (fair enough)"
I don't agree that it's "fair enough". Rejection letters used to be actual letters in the mail -- it was someone's job to fill in the applicant's name, put their address on an envelope and stick it in the mailbox. The point being, these used to cost the worker's wage, and companies went out of their way to send them. (If anyone could find a reason why they did this other than courtesy, please fill me in)
Now, in an era where communication is INFINITELY easier than it was even 20 years ago, companies suddenly don't have the decency to click "reply" and insert your name in a template.
Why is that?
I think that this lack of professionalism translates into posts like "reverse job application," because, yes, it IS very frustrating looking for a job as a new grad and being rejected without apparent reason or the common courtesy of an answer, watching your peers climb through the ranks, while you slip further and further into unemployable territory because you've been out of a job for so long. If the "reverse application" seems unprofessional, it is only because all he has seen is unprofessionalism in return.
I would have done things a little differently (i.e. included my skills and a resume), but applaud his decision to do something different.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I do agree that my generation is too entitled; I just wanted to also point out that the hiring process would be a lot easier for both sides if we had the same professional courtesy that we witnessed 20 years ago.
We realised, of course, that this led to a pretty crummy experience (as your friend found out, sorry!). Not everyone saw that message, and those that did likely still wondered if anyone had actually seen their application.
We recently removed that message from our site, and now respond individually to each email (typically within 24 hours) to confirm receipt and let the sender know when we expect to have reviewed their application by. We definitely appreciate the effort that many applicants go to, and want to keep people much better informed throughout the process (we learnt our lesson on this!). Please pass on my apologies to your friend!
reply