4 ms·
I fail to see what's good about your approach. I suppose if your company has a lot of pointless bullshit that doesn't apply to the actual problem, then yeah, yo
by s73ver_ 9y ago
I fail to see what's good about your approach. I suppose if your company has a lot of pointless bullshit that doesn't apply to the actual problem, then yeah, you're selecting for people who either are willing or have no other alternative.
- austincheney 9y ago> I fail to see what's good about your approach. It was pretty clear in that the primary motivation was to eliminate candidates who either lack confidence or competence so that you can spend more quality time with those candidates who care more about the respective skills. I don't know you, but I am guessing from your highly defensive tone that you likely fall into one of the categories I described in the previous paragraph. If this means of candidate elimination is emotionally offensive you should ask yourself why. When candidates exceed the number of openings somebody must be eliminated.
- s73ver_ 9y agoI highly disagree. And no, I don't fall into one of those categories; I'm just not willing to put up with random and arbitrary bullshit. Which is what those things are. Yes, I could operate under all those conditions. I choose not to, because those conditions suck ass. While someone must be eliminated, you need to ask yourself why you're selecting for those who would opt to work under random and arbitrary bullshit when they don't have to.