Report: The Candid Candidate

by Steve Chambers, 22 Nov 2024

We tapped into the collective knowledge and experience of people and their experience of being a job candidate: past, and present. The goal is to work out how to make it better in the future. This is anecdotal, we didn’t do a survey YET because we wanted to see what people came up with first.

Previously, we talked about The Four Horses of the Hiring Apocalypse, and what can go wrong from the hiring side. Given what we’ve learned from the candidate side, that needs to be revised!

But let’s get into it. What can you expect in this report? It’s part therapy (shared experience), it’s part tough love (what to do), and it’s part an ask of you: can we solve this thing together? Or we doomed to repeat this?

Because one thing is true: bitching and moaning down the pub about a crap job search and application experience is old news. The new news is what you can do about it. That bit, will be at the end.

If you want to get in touch about any of this, either Contact Us here or on the socialz/email:

• LinkedIn
• X
• Facebook
• YouTube
• Mail

TLDR

You can find the list of candid candidate observations in the ToC below, but this report is basically in two parts:

1. The list of candid candidate observations of getting a job.
2. The ways people are handling it — candid candidate techniques, and advice from Viewyonder.

You can watch my read through on YouTube if you want to go do something else and just listen:

Table of Contents

1. Ghosting

The biggest complaint by far by all candid candidates in our informal search.

Ghosting can happen at any point in the job process. It can happen at the start when you initially apply: perhap that’s more acceptable, even though a curteous thanks but no thanks would be better.

And why do the Dear John letters never tell you WHY you weren’t a fit?

But the anguish of being ghosted increases from the time you make your application, and it reaches a crescendo if you get to the final stages.

If you are ghosted at the final stages, you are rightly angry.

But why does this happen?

Recruiters and hiring managers I speak with say they are overloaded with applications — so, as said above, this is ok at the start (to some degree), but at the end when there’s just a few candidates left standing, it becomes less acceptable.

At the end of the day, this is human beings working with human beings. We should always empathise, especially from the hiring side to candidates. Just to be human.

But there’s another reason not to ghost candidates: they talk. They tell people like me about being ghosted by Company X and Recruiter Y for Job Z. Most ghosting goes unreported.

But shall we fix that in Part 3 of the Viewyonder hiring series? More on that later.

2. Gaslighting

This is basically being lied to by a recruiter/hiring manager. But there are subtle reasons and different ways that people report this happening.

One is because (and I quote) “The recruiter hasn’t got a fucking clue.” What this is, is the person that really understands the position in the hiring company is also very busy so they are “spared” until the last part of the recruitment process.

Another insidious way this has been shared with me is when candidates can’t get questions answered: “What’s the package?” — well, what are you on now. And all that malarky.

The third way that gaslighting was reported by Candid Candidates was that only light questioning about the role and it’s place in the company was met with bland answers, and sometimes if you make it further into the process you find the truth is totally different.

This is a truth thing, again.

3. Fishing

Job specs are one of the biggest complaints by candid candidates. Keyword stuff frankenjobs make it difficult to follow James Foster’s advice to make your past impactful and relevant to this job ad.

This is reported by candid candidates who feel they are being filtered out by ATS (Application Tracking Systems), but as James Foster said: this is not what ATS does.

There are two levels of fishing: one is normal (still bad), and the other one is evil (really bad).

3.1 Frankenjob Spec

We’ve all seen this, from the most reported ridiculous “required 10 years experience in ChatGPT” (which is only a few years oldish) — to the worst role overstuffing (very common in marketing) where, as one friend once said

“It’s everything but the kitchen sink! Why not stick a brush up my butt and I’ll sweep the floor while I’m at it!”

3.2 None-existent job

There are a couple of report types of this:

1. Real company with a fake job. This can be because they have to advertise externally as part of their process (more on process over people later), but they’ve made their mind up internally. So it’s a performative exercise.
2. Fake company and fake job. Anyone can post a job on LinkedIn. Have you heard of the company? Who from your network is connected to them? If you can’t find a human you trust… then don’t.

4. Fracking

This is about big cracks between your expectations and theirs.

This is more of an issue when you get the job and it’s not a fit. We should all give it time to bed in, but if you’re not satisfied in the first year… might be the wrong job. How did that happen?

It can happen when, during the hiring process, someone is overselling something. Could be the company selling the job, or you selling yourself (or a recruiter overselling you).

I’ve experienced this personally when I was hired into a big company for what I’d done in the past… but the VP I worked for then asked me to do a totally different job. Totally unsuitable ask, and what I told I’m I’d do — which fitted the job I’d been hired for — he wasn’t interested.. So I left within a year. So did he. Hiring managers are not loved for making bad hires.

And a bad hire is not necessarily a bad candidate, it can be a bad fit. And that takes two to tango.

Other candid candidates tell me that this happens often when you are a top quality techie and want to do work that furthers your career, but you get asked to to boring stuff, or completely irrelevant stuff to your career. I wrote about this in the 4 horses — attracting and retaining being the most relevant.

Imagine being usurped into Papa Lazarou’s Circus and you’re his wife now, living miserably in a cage.

5. Process > People

If you’ve ever had treatment on the NHS via a GP, then you’ll recognize this. They pop you into the sausage machine, and at some point you get spat out… sometimes as a sausage.

You get passed from appointment to appointment. Nobody has your records. You have to repeat yourself. And you never get treated / the job.

This is somewhat fair as companies need to apply a consistent process across all candidates, but sometimes there’s no leeway for specific candidates. For example, if you have a stellar Github coding history then it feels wrong to ask you to do a coding test for a couple of hours if your history already answers the question “can they code”.

In fact, candidates for developer jobs, who are subjected to this across a number of job applications, say it’s just too much.

I think this is an interesting area for easy improvement (!). Yes, there should be a process, but like a game of snakes and ladders, there should be a way to boost / deboost candidates.

Unconfident hiring managers cling to process because it’s all they understand and control: they don’t have the knowledge, experience, or understanding of jobs and candidates to boost/deboost.

Also, people who rely on process are often on the less dynamic end of the humanity spectrum. But maybe your job values that.

So, if you are dragged through a process, understand it’s happening for one or more reasons: and say if you see it. Ask them.

6. Too long, too slow

I think everyone will agree that a job opening should be closed in a quarter or less.

Candid candidates have reported that the longer the process, the less chance of their success, and the higher chance that the hiring company are like U2, and Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For — often because they didn’t know in the first place, or changed their mind…

This is a sign of the previous 3. Fishing.

It’s acceptable, as a candidate, to give the hiring company YOUR timeline and reject them beyond that, or compromise. Setting expectations is good, but candidates tell me they don’t feel like they can always put guardrails on the hiring company.

This is a mistake by the candidate, and candid candidates tell me it’s because their confidence is low and they feel vulnerable.

7. Expectations mis-match

The great Anthony Sutton told me in the 4 horses report that mismatched expectations was one of the biggest problems he sees, and candid candidates agree.

This can stem from the Frankenjob Spec, but also from the company hiring you for your past glories and not really understanding what they want you to do next.

It can also happen when the hiring company glosses over the issues in their company. They don’t want to put you, the candidate, off so they aren’t telling you the whole truth.

But great candidates use back channels to gather intelligence about the company, so they’re armed with questions to get to the truth, right?

8. Daft Job Spec

Some candid candidates told me how the job spec they applied for changed during the process: the first one was just a draft.

Sometimes one of their strengths was dropped, and sometimes things they couldn’t do was added.

Candidates feel, in this instance, that they are being used for market research for free and THEY HATE IT.

Companies, they feel, should have done their market research BEFORE opening the job. I asked a few candid candidates: if the company had asked you for advice about the job before opening the ad, would you have responded and helped?

All of them said yes. For free. So: before the job ad, no problem. During the job process, big problem.

9. No salary / package at the start

Some recruiters say “Stop asking about the package at the start, it tells me you don’t care about the job and you are unprofessional”. Wowzers.

The candid candidates I spoke with were all very professional and caring people, and they reject this line utterly.

The classic “What money do you want” versus, tell me the candidate what the package range is, is still a problem today.

But this is simple to answer. If you, as a hiring company, don’t know your budget (yes you do), because you haven’t done your research (yes you have), or don’t want to share it (because you’re fishing), then expect the best people to not apply.

They will think the job is fake, or you are fake. And they are maybe half right.

10. ATS and AI

Many quality candidates hate the use of AI in job applications, almost as much as hiring companies. But both sides are it — though not all companies and not all candidates.

James Foster and I covered this in our livestream. James said ATS doesn’t filter you out, it boosts people relevant to the job. That doesn’t mean a keyword stuffing candidate will get boosted by ATS.

From a candidate standpoint, there’s nothing wrong with using AI as a copilot on your CV. But you still have to own the CV and make it yours, and prioritise your impactful achievements that are relevant to the job.

DO NOT, as a candidate, be put off by huge amounts of job applications reported on LinkedIn. Stick to your authentic self.

Also, consider doing a short Loom video (free!) and sharing that.

11. No reputation warning

A big issues amongst all candid candidates is the “waste of time companies” that you find out are, well, a bit shit.

Either they are no good in the market, or no good at hiring, or have no good people. Of course you have to do your due diligence.

But if only there was a scoring mechanism for companies, hiring managers, recruiters, jobs… that comes in Part 3 of Viewyonder Hiring 🙂

12. No feedback path

Hard to feedback when you’ve been ghosted, but if you still have a communication channel with the hiring manager/recruiter, don’t worry about PHONING THEM UP (not email/message) and talking with them, giving positive feedback and “observations”.

This could clear up any miscommunication. After all, for the hiring company, recruitment is a baton race with multiple racers and dropped messages often happen.

Being positive also tells you what the hiring company is like. And it also puts you top of their mind as someone who is conscientious and gives a shit. As long as you don’t bug the crap out of them.

13. Untrained hiring managers

How many hiring managers have been trained to hire people? But by whom? How many HR people have been trained on recruitment process but know diddly squat about the job, team, or business?

Candidates report that experienced hiring managers are fine, and the best ones still get training and talk about hiring with enthusiasm like it’s an important part of their job.

At the other end of the spectrum are those hiring managers that think it’s ok to do an interview while they’re on a train, or they miss the interview, or they get drafted in to your interview and are negative about the company, their team, what’s happening, etc.

This was a big complain from many candidates. Unprofessional hiring managers.

14. Inconsistent industry best practice

What does good look like? What’s the minimum set of expectations, below which we should be able to complain, and above which we should be happy and enthused?

I asked a few candid candidates this and — unsurprisingly — it ties into the list above:

1. Don’t ghost me – even just short status messages are good.
2. Don’t gaslight me – I can tell when you’re not authentic. Honesty is good.
3. Don’t advertise jobs that don’t exist.
4. Don’t use Frankenjob Specs.
5. I know you need a process, but treat me like a human.
6. Let’s get this done in less than a quarter.
7. Let’s match expectations — it’s not just a skills match.
8. Tell me the package range at the start.

This should be the minimum baseline.

15. Skills > Attitude

Humans aren’t a product, they don’t come with a list of ingredients measured to the milligram.

Skills are obviously important, as is experience, but some candidates tell me that attitude was an afterthought or not a thought at all.

This is also symptomatic of people relying on systems, tools, process, and not being very human. You can indicate attitude on a CV, but it’s talking to someone that really reveals it.

Age popped up in this category, because it seems to be quite prevalent that companies judge you solely on your age.

SOme younger candid candidates with experience say hiring managers “apply an inexperienced attitude to me”, which is clearly a bias “young = enthusiastic but little experience”. And older candidates are shoved in the unwelcome bucket of “old = fixed mindset and stiff attitude”. This is wrong and possibly illegal.

One of the candid candidates told me how he’d been hired by a senior team, then put with “all the young uns” (younger by 20 years). There was a mix of attitudes here. Almost a tribalism.

What can candid candidates do to improve things?

The short answers is: take charge. Refuse to be yet another bit of flotsam on the sea. Find people like you, build your own network, and get help. Do this before you need it.

At the end of the day, for all of the candid candidate points above, you should be watching for these and have techniques to avoid them.

For example, if you see a frankenjob spec then try to find the hiring manager and give them some helpful feedback. Share your observation that “you can’t have ten years of GenAI experience”, please could you clarify?

Also, help the hiring managers qualify you out. This sounds backwards, but if you tell them that you want to help, and maybe it’s not a fit but we’ll find out, and if we both learn something nothing is lost. You’d be surprised at the results.

Viewyonder Hiring Part 3 – Hiring Revolution

We’re slowly getting there. In part 1 we looked at the hiring side in The Four Horses of the Hiring Apocalypse. In this part 2, we looked at the Candid Candidate. So what’s the next, part 3 about?

Consider this. Each candidate is, of course, responsible for their own experience. They can’t control hiring companies, but they can choose who to engage with and how, and choose to walk away and chalk it down to experience — or have a great experience, and share that with their ally network and LinkedIn at large.

But there is a more collective way to do this. And we might need some tech. Here is an early insight to what I’m thinking about for a new Hiring Revolution:

1. Imagine everyone owns their own data and timeline of their career. Think of your personal LinkedIn, but much more information private to you.
2. You choose which data to share from your personal data and timeline — think of exposing a subset to LinkedIn and other marketplaces. And with hiring managers.
3. It’s a copilot that helps you get a job. Helps you understand the job spec, find allies in your network, rate the job spec, find relevant scores from others — helps you be well informed.
4. It helps you engage with hiring companies and recruiters — help you to manage multiple applications at once, keep on top of comms, remind you what’s happening.
5. When you join-move-leave a company — it helps you throughout all those stages. The company you work for can get access to part of your private career information (e.g. CV).
6. It helps you with a role you do. Developer? Marketing? Professional Services? Insurance? Medical? HIRING MANAGER?
7. Your interactions are rated on your timeline, private to you. You can share this history.
8. Companies, jobs, recruiters are also tracked. Is this job fake? Did they ghost you? What went well, what went bad? Can the other side verify it? People tend to behave better when they are being watched.
9. Everyone gets a score — you, the hiring company, the recruiter. This is perhaps the most controversial aspect.
10. The score is confidential. It’s only used give restricted insights into one of the entities. This is the complex bit.

The last few points are the most controversial: shining a light on the recruitment industry.

Look at the list of candid candidate complaints and ask yourself if they would all happen less, or at all, if it had to happen in the open? Aren’t all of these points a result of a secretive industry?

There’s the law of unintended consequences in this, but something needs to change.

What do you think?

• LinkedIn
• X
• Facebook
• YouTube
• Mail