3 ms·

I agree with you, but here's the thing. If the vast majority of companies are running like that and succeeding, does that not suggest that there really is a wo

• vertex-four 10y ago
  Well, all it really shows is that the "market" in this instance is incredibly inefficient. People need jobs, and if the vast majority of companies have a poor interview process, and 1% have a good one, assuming that this is the only thing that people care about (it's not), all that's going to happen is the 1% get the employees they want, and the other 99% still get some employees. The market is likely inefficient for the same reason that the advertising industry is inefficient - difficulty to show than any given change independently improves outcomes.
• wpietri 10y ago
  For some jobs, sure. But what I really think it suggests is a power asymmetry. A company can do without 1 worker much more easily than a worker can do without 1 job. Plus, current processes let hiring managers feel powerful. Given the high percentage of hiring managers who are social primates, I expect that's a big factor. In tech, though, you hear endless complaints about how hard it is to hire, so I didn't hesitate to optimize the process for interviewee happiness. I expect it would make people more likely to apply, more likely to stay through the process, more likely to accept an offer, and more likely to refer friends. Regardless, there's enormous waste to be removed from the process for anybody who's willing to put a little thought and work in.