3 ms·

There is usually a few HR hours put into every interview, plus you are adding 1-6 more people at various levels of the company who might be a part of the interv

There is usually a few HR hours put into every interview, plus you are adding 1-6 more people at various levels of the company who might be a part of the interview. Most of the people doing the interview don't have any real training in it, and don't do it as part of their job. They may do ten full interviews to hire one person(Or more). So yes, their time is more valuable because more people and more hours are involved. The cost for hiring a person, in time and resources, is the sum of the costs of all 10 of the interviews.

geofft 9y ago
Isn't the point of interviewing that you gain an entirely new person on your team, who is contributing some 2000 hours per year to your team and hopefully staying for at least a few years? Even if you measure in hours and assume all hours are equal (i.e., you're hiring people equal to you, not people better / more skilled in certain areas than you), the cost of hiring a person is about three orders of magnitude smaller than the expected benefit. Interviewing (and doing a good job of it) is roughly the most impactful thing you can do at a job. If your company doesn't believe this, doesn't train people in interviews, and doesn't define interviewing to be part of people's jobs, I really have no idea why I should think you're well-managed. (I'm entirely serious. I don't know where you work, but you should get out before it breaks your brain further. I'm still recovering from the ways my previous employer broke my brain in regards to how software shops should work, and it's been a long while since I worked there.) If your company doesn't define interviewing to be a part of the job description, do they define code review? Training? Mentorship? Management? Or is everyone expected to just write code?