This kind of thing is an unfortunate feature of many business processes.
Recruiting qualified staff is quite time-consuming - directly expensive, but there's also a significant opportunity cost if experienced staff are taken away from their duties to talk to what can feel like an infinite number of unsuitable candidates.
And of course there really are a lot of unsuitable candidates, and the "everybody games the system" principle (i.e. a lot of people lie in their resumes) means it's quite hard to filter useless ones out early.
That means it often makes sense to hand off the early stages to specialists. The idea is to use an efficient organization to select good candidates, and filter out bad ones.
But of course the recruiting companies want to make fat profits too, so they do the usual bureaucratic thing: implement barely useful processes (e.g. computerized analysis of resumes are currently popular, but they're trivially "gameable"), lying about the true industry experience of both their "grunts" and their specialists, and (especially relevant for this thread) inserting steps that sound great to the "pointy-headed managers" in the companies they work for, but are in fact useless.
(BTW the cause of this kind of thing is much the same everywhere, but it's an intractable topic to discuss. FWIW it's s much the same as MBAs squeezing companies so hard for more yield that they go broke from not paying attention to the big picture).
In order to navigate this labyrinth of inefficiency and corruption, it's absolutely necessary to game the system yourself.
... which, amusingly, makes the recruiting process less efficient, with numerous weird and paradoxical effects that are outside the scope of this discussion /lol. But this is how NT's handle moderate levels of complexity - it's never rational, but it can be analyzed
I'm not sure there's any point in my explaining the details. This is an ocean I've swum in for a long time, so the process is easy for me - but I have a lot of experience in a narrow but still relevant area, and I work for a small company that does all the annoying parts of this for me.
As a starting point: I strongly recommend doing some research. There seems to be information online. And you can always make a few trial runs (applications you don't expect to be successful. At worst you'll have to turn down a job
And create the factual core of a resume. This is a PITA the first time, but you'll reuse it over and over, so the sooner you have a basic one ready the better.
Recruiting qualified staff is quite time-consuming - directly expensive, but there's also a significant opportunity cost if experienced staff are taken away from their duties to talk to what can feel like an infinite number of unsuitable candidates.
And of course there really are a lot of unsuitable candidates, and the "everybody games the system" principle (i.e. a lot of people lie in their resumes) means it's quite hard to filter useless ones out early.
That means it often makes sense to hand off the early stages to specialists. The idea is to use an efficient organization to select good candidates, and filter out bad ones.
But of course the recruiting companies want to make fat profits too, so they do the usual bureaucratic thing: implement barely useful processes (e.g. computerized analysis of resumes are currently popular, but they're trivially "gameable"), lying about the true industry experience of both their "grunts" and their specialists, and (especially relevant for this thread) inserting steps that sound great to the "pointy-headed managers" in the companies they work for, but are in fact useless.
(BTW the cause of this kind of thing is much the same everywhere, but it's an intractable topic to discuss. FWIW it's s much the same as MBAs squeezing companies so hard for more yield that they go broke from not paying attention to the big picture).
In order to navigate this labyrinth of inefficiency and corruption, it's absolutely necessary to game the system yourself.
... which, amusingly, makes the recruiting process less efficient, with numerous weird and paradoxical effects that are outside the scope of this discussion /lol. But this is how NT's handle moderate levels of complexity - it's never rational, but it can be analyzed
I'm not sure there's any point in my explaining the details. This is an ocean I've swum in for a long time, so the process is easy for me - but I have a lot of experience in a narrow but still relevant area, and I work for a small company that does all the annoying parts of this for me.
As a starting point: I strongly recommend doing some research. There seems to be information online. And you can always make a few trial runs (applications you don't expect to be successful. At worst you'll have to turn down a job
And create the factual core of a resume. This is a PITA the first time, but you'll reuse it over and over, so the sooner you have a basic one ready the better.
