Ever wonder "How long it takes to fill a position"?

beads

I asked this question this question of my high level HR wife this morning. She didn't really have much of an answer other than - too long or quite awhile. So before work I sent Google off to do what it does best. Below is the starting point.

Here

As an open discussion go ahead and see what you can see. Anything stand out more than another? Industries, fields etc? I am asking an open ended question as much of what was found is quite interesting.

-b/eads

networker050184

I don't think I've ever seen high tech level roles I've been involved with filled in less than a few months. It's hard to find good people and even when you do you usually have some stiff competition for them. Lower level support type roles fill faster for obvious reasons.

networker050184

Three months is nothing. I wish we could fill them all in three months!

TheProf

I think for the higher up tech jobs when it comes to working for a large vendor or a large organization in general, it always takes a while to find a new recruits. This is not just because the company itself is slow in it's processes (even though some are), but because interviewing higher caliber individuals can take a lot longer than junior professionals.

From my experience, I've interviewed with company's that took almost 6 months to get back to me with an offer... while others took a week. So it really depends on the company, the process, the amount of candidate's to interview, the decision making process, the background checks, the offer, and finally the candidates acceptance of the offer.

I would say on average, from my experience around 2-4 weeks is where I normally hear back. But that can easily span to three months or more.

beads

I thought it was interesting just because I've hadn't thought of it this way. Even being on the hiring end I would have considered it my fault or being too picky about candidates.

Seems I am not alone.

- b/eads

iBrokeIT

Yes and too damn long is the answer

After reading a job description, I sometimes get the feeling that a company would rather wait months and months for their unicorn(meets +90% of their job description ask) to come along than hire someone that is "good enough"(meets 65%-75%), fill the role and give them a little training.

pinkydapimp

This is the reason you shouldn't be scared to counter if your offer is low. They have likely spent a while looking to fill the position. They selected you and want you to start as bad as you do. It is easier, and many times cheaper for them to give you your counter than to go back to the drawing board and continue searching for someone(especially if they have a limited window to add someone before a hiring freeze).

wolfinsheepsclothing

We have a position available on our team that has been open for 1.5 years...

Shoe Box

I am anxiously waiting to hear back from a local company for a data center tech job that I really want, to get out of desktop support and start learning more bigger better things. They said 7-10 days, it has now been THIRTEEN days, those people...........

olaHalo

Yeah we have a "higher" level position that requires the person to have a CCNP thats been open for over 2 years.
No one will take it because it doesnt pay very well.

To my advantage Ill happily accept it once I finish my studies =D

Robertf969

I interviewed for a position last month that I thought I did poorly on and had pretty much just assumed I was out of the running. I received an email a couple days ago to let me know I was still being considered and would be updated soon. I hope its not another interview as that would make 5 (A HR Phone screen, a panel phone screen, a supervisor phone screen, and a 6 person panel in person interview).

But I have been out of the game so long being in the Military, I guess finding that super right person does take forever.

networker050184

iBrokeIT wrote: »

After reading a job description, I sometimes get the feeling that a company would rather wait months and months for their unicorn(meets +90% of their job description ask) to come along than hire someone that is "good enough"(meets 65%-75%), fill the role and give them a little training.

I had this conversation with my former boss quite a few times when we were having trouble finding good people. The boss wanted to just hire anyone by this point or we would lose the req soon if not filled. My boss' reasoning was we could always just fire them in a couple months if they didn't work out and start over again. My reasoning was that wastes even more time. The boss obviously won out and as you can imagine we got into a bit of turnover with that line of reasoning.

And don't get me wrong, training someone is never a problem. I'll take a smart person and train them on 80% of the job no problem. As long as they have aptitude. Even that seems nearly impossible to find sometimes.

gespenstern

I don't know, maybe I have issues selling myself, but it's usually really hard for me to find a job. Sometimes I write down interview questions I've had in order to work on them later and I usually confirm that I gave right answers and overall was technically sound only to find out later that I was rejected for reasons unknown.

For example, I know some folks at Microsoft and I'm confident that I'm smarter than many of them, however, I wasn't able to land a job there while I've been applying there for years. Now I think that I became too old for MS, lol.

I'd say that HR or whoever makes decisions here is too picky, at least it's my experience.

Another stupid thing that I don't understand about hiring process is why it's not made fair for all applicants. Why applicants have to have stupid conversations on this and that and get asked different questions instead of formalized process of giving the same set of questions to every applicant so HR can judge purely on performance instead of using some tricky obscure covert decision process that applicant has no influence on?

By this day you would have expected that large enterprises have some kind of testing process similar to what certification bodies have or just rely purely on certs. Equal opportunities, really, those that they all talk about on every corner. But no, we have stupid conversations with random questions that interviewers come up with during the course of the interview. How lame is that.

Yeah, in the end I blame myself for being too misanthropic and dark person who refuses to insert a joke or two. But in the end isn't it stupid to hire a smooth talker who can joke all day around but can't do sh!t instead of a dark-mooded pro who can do sh!t? Even on remote positions?

This sucks.

So in the end I usually land only on positions where a manager I report to is technical himself. Maybe it's not bad for me, after all... But it certainly takes time. So here's your answer, HR: look for pros, formalize the process and accept whoever comes on top withing a certain time period. Without stupid remarks like "I don't feel that this person is right for position". Are we talking IT after all which should be a precise field or some weird humanitarian stuff like gender studies or something?

networker050184

If your company has HR picking technical staff that's the #1 problem. I've heard about this happening on here, but that has never been the case any place I've been involved with the hiring. Seems like it's probably more of an enterprise thing since I always work at technology companies.

quickman007

I'm not surprised it takes so long to fill a position. Most of the jobs I come across are completely unrealistic. I can't keep count of how many job descriptions require advanced knowledge in 4-5 different areas of IT, 5 years minimum experience, and a Bachelors in IT for a whopping $20/hr. Maybe my definition of advanced is different from theirs, though.

gespenstern

NetworkNewb wrote: »

I'm sure a lot managers (and people in general...) like working with someone who they can talk with casually with. Of course it's great if you're smart technically, but don't think I would want to work closely with someone who doesn't have a decent personality.

Well, then why everybody writes in job descriptions endless lists of tech skills? Shouldn't they state then that they are looking for a great buddy to chat with, small-talk capable, smiley and all. Oh, and it's good if this buddy can at least click mouse buttons. But no, everybody is looking for a tech expert and when they find one they reject him because of "they feel this person isn't right".

I'm a geek, I barely speak at all, I quickly become bored and annoyed if time is wasted in stupid talks where more than a half of participants doesn't know what they are talking about. And because of that I'm not accepted. How should I even search for a job if I can't tell from a JD if they really expect an expert or a chat buddy?

Hate this.

bpenn

What I find is a big issue around the area where I live in is the good-ole boy syndrome. Plenty of jobs get posted for 1-2 days because they have to post it but they already have someone lined up. Hell, I got my current job because I knew someone and the recommendation the guy gave to hiring manager was so good he was willing to take a chance on me.

networker050184

gespenstern wrote: »

Well, then why everybody writes in job descriptions endless lists of tech skills? Shouldn't they state then that they are looking for a great buddy to chat with, small-talk capable, smiley and all.

Why can't they look for someone that is both?

SpetsRepair

Interviewed with a great company a few weeks ago, the interview went very well but they mentioned i live about 45 minutes to an hour away, that isn't a problem for me at all. It looks like they can't fill this position and i am going to apply again, they might want someone local, but like they said in the interview i am a great fit. Talked to the network designer/engineer i would be working with and he said wow we hit it off, we talked about so much and i even met a couple of the staff. I probably should've sent an email or called a few weeks ago, but i didn't. Feel like **** right now, but if i get a chance with this company again I'm willing to accept their offer even if i live farther than what they want.

When i say hit it off in the interview i mean it went great, talked about their infrastructure where the company is headed, they are also growing and expanding. They re-posted a similar job offer, looks like they haven't found someone