I'd also like to see cover letters replaced by something more useful for both parties, like a small set of direct questions to answer.
When an applicant applies for a job, she's left to make her best guess as to what information the company might find useful, and has to find a way to cram that into an awkward, stiff, rather bullshitty epistolary format. The hirer is then left to try to parse and interpret that to arrive at some guesswork notion of whether the applicant might be a fit.
If the hiring company were to instead come up with a list of guided questions, they'd communicate and request up front what information they need to determine whether a candidate is worth meeting (and thereby would be forced to figure this out themselves before beginning interviews—an important step often skipped). Seeing these questions, the applicant would first make a quick judgment on whether she's interested in a company or role that wants to know these things, and then if she is, proceed to answer them, demonstrating her ability to communicate in a much more contextual, engaged fashion, versus modifying her own cover letter template or laboring over the blindfire of a custom one.
I see only advantages to this approach. It helps companies avoid an inbox full of inappropriate applicants who didn't even read the job description, and it enables applicants to learn more about the company and role up front while breaking the monotony of the application grind and having a greater opportunity to put their best feet forward by applying their personality, knowledge, and experience contextually, rather than packing it into a shotgun shell and blasting the job board with buckshot.
This may ask for more of an applicant's time than the current approach, especially in an era where every job site is trying to make applying into a one-click process, but as someone who has spent a truly unbelievable amount of time and effort looking for jobs (and a fair amount of time hiring), I can confidently say the dragnet application approach is ineffective, inefficient, and demoralizing compared to preparing fewer, better applications for jobs that actually interest you.
> I'd also like to see cover letters replaced by something more useful for both parties, like a small set of direct questions to answer.
This "small set of direct questions," in my opinion, is implicit in the job description/duties and desired qualifications. Employers lately have had challenges in job definition, of course (they seem interested in advertising for the company rather than a job, and the job descriptions have become increasingly elastic; in their defense, retention is hard, and it can be difficult to slot people into single roles anymore).
My general practice in responding to job postings is to prepend my resume with a table containing the job requirements vs. my experience with an estimation of whether I meet the requirement (check, dash, X) and a brief explanation.
In cases where there aren't any job postings, but I have an interest in the company—or if I want to make an impression that I'm targeting them—I'll send a cover letter by postal mail with a printed resume. Usually it's a few sentences: here's why I'm interested, how I might be useful to you, and here's a resume with contact information if you want to reach out.
> prepend my resume with a table containing the job requirements vs. my experience
That's an interesting approach. But what I think gets somewhat lost in this, and why I don't quite think a job description serves as that set of questions, is that there's so much more color and character (culture?) that can come through if the questions are good.
For example, a bad question, or something that should satisfied by the JD and résumé, would be "Do you have experience doing X?" If that's important, just say so. A better question might be "Why are you interested in building X for Y industry?"
I think résumés and job descriptions as they're currently written do an okay job of checking off raw qualifications. What's missing is clarity and direction for the less quantifiable bits. Done right, it could be like a low-pressure, no-expectations first interview in lieu of a crap email that's tedious to write, tedious to read, and likely only helps a hirer understand whether the applicant can write a good cover letter.
> A better question might be "Why are you interested in building X for Y industry?"
If the JD is building X for Y industry, I'd think a cover letter might address this. Sometimes, of course, we're in the position of doing a bit of spray-and-pray when it comes to application...but generally I try to make sure the cover letter justifies sending the resume at all: here's my interest, your needs, and some more information if you want to read further.
> What's missing is clarity and direction for the less quantifiable bits. Done right, it could be like a low-pressure, no-expectations first interview in lieu of a crap email that's tedious to write, tedious to read, and likely only helps a hirer understand whether the applicant can write a good cover letter.
I think you're basically right here: the interview process is challenging because it's a bit like a first date and you really want to know what the marriage is going to be like. That's why, I think, some companies have shifted away from being very clear about what they're asking for and more towards trying to find personality, adaptability, and retention fits: it maximizes their ROI by ensuring they get people they like, who can change as needed, and who will stick around. The challenge for applicants, of course, is that they no longer really know "What am I going to do?" and "Am I qualified for this?" or "How much do I need to learn?" There's a lot of comfort in competence!
I wouldn't underestimate the value of communication—including the ability to write a cover letter. I resented, at first, that I found myself in more forward-facing positions in my career, because I wanted to spend more time in technical work. But it's been a suitable way to get paid while enjoying time programming, too.
What is the response rate to those postal mails you send? And who do you address them to (do you find the name of the recruiter or just address it to the general company)
> What is the response rate to those postal mails you send? And who do you address them to (do you find the name of the recruiter or just address it to the general company)
I don't do this often, so I'd be wary of reading in too much. In each case, I got an interview and one job, though that took awhile. (The hiring manager did not comment on the letter, but rather on the table at the top—probably because I couldn't find his name.)
I try to find the appropriate person to contact through LinkedIn, ideally a manager in the department of interest; I wrote to a (small) company president once, too. I try to avoid recruiters if I can help it, though my bias against them is perhaps a little uncharitable. The goals are two: to sidestep the usual application process through a little elbow grease and to differentiate myself in the candidate pool. I'm probably a pretty average programmer, and this has been a useful tool for me.
In the past, cover letters were usually a weak point because I would use boilerplate language that comes across as a bit canned. I've had the luxury lately of not having to do this: the letters were all written for companies I thought I really wanted to work for, so the interest was genuine and (hopefully) came across that way.
I'd also like to see cover letters replaced by something more useful for both parties, like a small set of direct questions to answer.
When an applicant applies for a job, she's left to make her best guess as to what information the company might find useful, and has to find a way to cram that into an awkward, stiff, rather bullshitty epistolary format. The hirer is then left to try to parse and interpret that to arrive at some guesswork notion of whether the applicant might be a fit.
If the hiring company were to instead come up with a list of guided questions, they'd communicate and request up front what information they need to determine whether a candidate is worth meeting (and thereby would be forced to figure this out themselves before beginning interviews—an important step often skipped). Seeing these questions, the applicant would first make a quick judgment on whether she's interested in a company or role that wants to know these things, and then if she is, proceed to answer them, demonstrating her ability to communicate in a much more contextual, engaged fashion, versus modifying her own cover letter template or laboring over the blindfire of a custom one.
I see only advantages to this approach. It helps companies avoid an inbox full of inappropriate applicants who didn't even read the job description, and it enables applicants to learn more about the company and role up front while breaking the monotony of the application grind and having a greater opportunity to put their best feet forward by applying their personality, knowledge, and experience contextually, rather than packing it into a shotgun shell and blasting the job board with buckshot.
This may ask for more of an applicant's time than the current approach, especially in an era where every job site is trying to make applying into a one-click process, but as someone who has spent a truly unbelievable amount of time and effort looking for jobs (and a fair amount of time hiring), I can confidently say the dragnet application approach is ineffective, inefficient, and demoralizing compared to preparing fewer, better applications for jobs that actually interest you.