Getting across technical recruiter's faux pas

Neon_Lights

I've been having a discussion about this with my friend recently in which we both work in IT and have experience with a certain set of tools, applications, frameworks etc.

In job descriptions we apply for we see that there are very specific requirements to use different tools which we have experience in our functional area however not direct experience in them. To give an example coming from a SAP house and applying for a Microsoft or Oracle house in a BI role.

How do people explain or force the recruiters/ interviewers away from their whole mentality of it being a whole tick the box exercise? E.G. you have no Oracle so you don't know anything about ERP systems.. Despite having years of experience as a SAP consultant

Stheno

Are you looking to move from e.g. SAP to Dynamics at the applications layer?

Neon_Lights

Stheno wrote: »

Are you looking to move from e.g. SAP to Dynamics at the applications layer?

Not exactly no ... Was just giving an example ... Another one I've heard is do you have SQL .. Yeah I've written in PLSQL for years... So you have no TSQL???

Stheno

Neon_Lights wrote: »

Not exactly no ... Was just giving an example ... Another one I've heard is do you have SQL .. Yeah I've written in PLSQL for years... So you have no TSQL???

If they are looking for a specific technical skill and you don't have it, you'll fail tbh

It would be like someone looking to go into Telecoms with ITIL when they want eTOM imo very close but not quite there

matrim

Neon_Lights wrote: »

Not exactly no ... Was just giving an example ... Another one I've heard is do you have SQL .. Yeah I've written in PLSQL for years... So you have no TSQL???

Do you have experience in SQL?

Yes, I used it in these projects .....

If you think you know enough about the product to do the job, say yes and the product you used it in. If you don't you'll be found out at the technical stage

Neon_Lights

Stheno wrote: »

If they are looking for a specific technical skill and you don't have it, you'll fail tbh

It would be like someone looking to go into Telecoms with ITIL when they want eTOM imo very close but not quite there

Ah yeah but saying that if the person can get around ITIL surely they can get their head around e164 number formatting, switches and interconnect billing... Should it not really be about the capacity of a person to learn grow and boost their skills while doing the job also?

Stheno

Neon_Lights wrote: »

Ah yeah but saying that if the person can get around ITIL surely they can get their head around e164 number formatting, switches and interconnect billing... Should it not really be about the capacity of a person to learn grow and boost their skills while doing the job also?

Not if the role requires demonstrable experience in all of the above no.

Neon_Lights

Stheno wrote: »

Not if the role requires demonstrable experience in all of the above no.

But say it was a little bit more vague and the recruiter didn't have the wherewithal to put two and two together?

matrim

Neon_Lights wrote: »

But say it was a little bit more vague and the recruiter didn't have the wherewithal to put two and two together?

Then it's up to you to convince them. Recruiters don't and can't know everything so you have to play to the crowd to make them think that you are worth putting forward for the interview

Neon_Lights

matrim wrote: »

Then it's up to you to convince them. Recruiters don't and can't know everything so you have to play to the crowd to make them think that you are worth putting forward for the interview

Fine.. I'm just gonna have to spend all my life savings doing every IT certification on the planet and hope I get an unpaid internship to lock in those skills so

syklops

Neon_Lights wrote: »

Fine.. I'm just gonna have to spend all my life savings doing every IT certification on the planet and hope I get an unpaid internship to lock in those skills so

He said it is up to you yo convince the resuiter, not get all the training under the sun. It comes more down to interview skill than anything else.

"Have you any experience with SQL?"
"Of course, specifically in PLSQL, but the syntax is generally so similar, that i can work on or pick up any query language relatively quickly".

That shows confidence, and very very few recruiters are going to question an answer like that.

beauf

syklops wrote: »

... very very few recruiters are going to question an answer like that.

You have to get past the tick box filter to get to interview.

syklops

beauf wrote: »

You have to get past the tick box filter to get to interview.

True but if you tick 3 out of 5 of the boxes, you are a shoe in. Theres very few people floating around who are 5 out of 5 ticks.

beauf

Neon_Lights wrote: »

...How do people explain or force the recruiters/ interviewers away from their whole mentality of it being a whole tick the box exercise? E.G. you have no Oracle so you don't know anything about ERP systems.. Despite having years of experience as a SAP consultant

It seems to me (perhaps incorrectly) The whole idea of training people into a role, or as a skilled employee is gone. You're expected hit the ground running, with all the boxes ticked from day one. Its becoming the norm even when you are in the job.

Eoin

I don't think that's the case - if you're expecting to find a candidate who ticks every box, you can expect them to get bored quickly as there's not much room for them to grow. There's always (or should be) an expectation that there are things they'll have to learn on the job.

But there are also situations where you do need a person to start being productive immediately, so a specific skill might be absolutely essential. When I was hiring, I had 2 lists - essential and advantageous, to help make things clearer.

To answer the original question, I would use a cover letter to describe comparable skills.

beauf

I agree with you Eoin. I just don't think a lot of Agency and HR people are following that mindset. When I was last job hunting & contracting, it was certainly they were looking for a 5/5 tick box. I avoided it by avoiding agencies and looking for jobs which emphasised other skills and experience, and avoid those which were just a generic, skills list. A cover letter is good. But its doesn't get past the tick box filter, be that automated, or a person doing the same thing. Maybe my experience is not typical. I've also had the experience of going to an interview with at best, 5 out 10 tick boxes then being told I was over qualified.

Perhaps, Focus on jobs, and companies that more closely match your skillset and experience, and you might avoid the generic recruitment trawling.

fret_wimp2

In this case i dont think the recruiter is incorrect in what they are asking and using it to filter out people without a specific skillset.

e.g. Company is looking for a DBA. They primarily use SQL Server.
You are an Oracle guy, worked in it for years.

They are both Relational database management systems, right?

So day one, you walk in the door and a massive Transactional Replication setup goes wrong. It needs to be fixed NOW to ensure full production functionality.

Do you know how SQL Server implements replication?
Do you know how to take a backup that doesnt break the backup chain in commvault, so that you can then use it to reinitialize the subscriber?
Subscribers are used for reporting so have different indexes implemented, do you know how to get these create as quickly as possible?

Thats just 3 of a gazillion little things you would need to know to get things back up and running.

Sure you can learn all this and crawl through it step by step, first figuring out the architecture that is in place, and following online instructions or if youre super lucky, the documentation the last DBA left, but thats a day or even more of work, and even then, youre doing it for the first time, you dont know if it will even work. did you leave out a step? is there something the documentation assumes you know?

If the company has the leeway to give you the time to adapt your skillset to another platform, then excellent, its a good role and you should try to convince the recruiter that you can handle the job.

If you need to hit the ground running, know what you are doing and how to do it fast, then regardless of if you understand a type of system, your knowledge of the platform is paramount and should either make you a good candidate or eliminate you from running for that role.

Eoin

beauf wrote: »

I agree with you Eoin. I just don't think a lot of Agency and HR people are following that mindset. When I was last job hunting & contracting, it was certainly they were looking for a 5/5 tick box. I avoided it by avoiding agencies and looking for jobs which emphasised other skills and experience, and avoid those which were just a generic, skills list. A cover letter is good. But its doesn't get past the tick box filter, be that automated, or a person doing the same thing. Maybe my experience is not typical. I've also had the experience of going to an interview with at best, 5 out 10 tick boxes then being told I was over qualified.

Perhaps, Focus on jobs, and companies that more closely match your skillset and experience, and you might avoid the generic recruitment trawling.

Agencies are the least likely to be fussy. If they are, it's because of the brief they've been given by the employer. In fact, they're probably more likely to get you in the door for an interview, as they'll take the time to listen to what skills you think are comparable to the ones required.

But yeah, the companies that automate the process by scanning for keywords or whatever might reject it. I hate applying for a job and being presented with a 10 step process where you have to copy/paste parts of your CV and so on into their forms.