Re: Your job application (attached)
Dear Jack,
Thanks for applying for the position of General Shitkicker at ACME Widgets Inc. Although your application was unsuccessful in this instance, and you will not be moving on to the job interview stage, we wish you the best in your future pursuits, and we're sure there's a job out there that's perfect for a well-qualified candidate like yourself.
Yours sincerely,
Kalen H. R. Drone
P.S. Normally that's where the courtesy email ends. But in your case, Jack, based on the comments you made in the "Additional Information" box on our web application form, I feel compelled to inform you that you are operating under some pretty basic misapprehensions about the process of looking for work. The kind of misapprehensions that are liable to agonizingly prolong that process, not to mention seriously affect your ability to be a productive employee in any corporate environment. Look at this any way you like, but do try not to be insulted. The way I prefer to think of this is that I'm giving a potential future employee a dollar's worth of free advice. You raised three points:
1. Customized web application forms - bad?
Quite contrary to your perception that your resume exists to save you trouble, actually the resume was invented to save HR departments trouble. But they've largely outlived their usefulness. Time was, you could simply scan a resume and make a go/no-go decision about granting an interview. These days resumes look identical, and often contain identical information (after all, every candidate is going for the same job, right?) And so we need something else. And so for certain positions we use web forms.
A web form tells us pretty accurately two things (regardless of the actual "questions" on it): can this person instantly adapt to a system they've never used before; and can this person communicate things of worth in a small, space-limited box? After all, the first of those skills will be absolutely key if/when you start working here, or anywhere! And the second skill is a terrific thing to have. If you get a "yes" on the first, then perhaps we'll need to see your resume. But increasingly often -- depending on the complexity of the web form -- you may move straight to interview. It's an awesomely effective way to trim the field: because the answer to "is this person adaptable?" is so very often no. We don't want people who cannot adapt quickly and communicate meaningfully in brief working here. And that's true whatever it is you'd potentially be doing for us.
2. Salary requirement conversations - useless & annoying?
Your preferred answer to the "salary requirement question" actually tells us an awful lot about you. I'll leave most of what it tells us a mystery (can't give away all the secrets!) but I will mention the most obvious thing: you have no idea what your skills are worth in the marketplace. While you might think this would make a corporate drone like me rub my hands together with unalloyed glee, actually it just makes me fearful. If you don't know what you're worth, you're likely going to come pre-equipped with a raft of other insecurities about what you're good at, and misconceptions about what you suck at. Again: we don't want people like that working here.
Know what you're worth? Unashamed to tell us? Then we'll talk and see if our budget matches your expectations. I have, personally, stretched a budgeted salary by up to 140% over the anticipated rate, because the winning candidate knew what they were worth. They were right, and when we find ourselves stretching the budget like that, the employee we end up with is inevitably a stone-cold winner. And no, just saying a really big number to try and game this process won't work, because you'll immediately be asked to justify it in detail.
3. Bullshit corporate language - meaningless?
With this attitude, you probably annoy your friends with the jargon of your own field, and don't think that you have an accent (but you think that everyone else does). Or maybe not. But one thing that is clear is that you don't have the understanding to see that a job ad cannot presume any particular background and so must use inclusive, non-exclusionary language. If a mining equipment company used mining equipment jargon in their job ad, how would they attract the road-building equipment gal (or guy) who would be a perfect "outside-inside" hire? (Sorry, lapsed into HR jargon there. See how alienating it is when you don't have the first clue how to interpret it?)
P.P.S. In summary, Jack, these fundamental misunderstandings are hurting only one person: you. Talk to your mother about these things. If she's got 25 years in the field then she'll probably be happy to tell you straight up that HR is mostly about excluding candidates rather than including them. Ask her about the things you wrote on our web form. Show her this letter. Have an epiphany. And good luck!
Full disclosure: I (the author, not the fictional H. R. Drone from the fictional email above) make a substantial part of my living hiring programmers. I am very good at it.