4 ms·

So you pre-screen on calls, but do you get any of your co-workers to do it? There's no hard and fast rule that you have to spend 30 minutes to an hour per whac

So you pre-screen on calls, but do you get any of your co-workers to do it? There's no hard and fast rule that you have to spend 30 minutes to an hour per whack, either. You get most of your signal in the first 5 minutes (first impressions and all that). Offering a "grievance process" where nervous candidates can plead their case for a mulligan telegraphs a (probably deserved) lack of confidence in your own company's hiring practices. The only thing worse than a first date that went bad, where they want to submit to you in writing how they could do better if given a second chance, is where they want you to submit that to them in writing. Your last paragraph totally makes my point. The purpose of an interviewing process for any serious business is not to find the best candidate, but to fill the position with a qualified hire who works well with others. The 98th percentile score should not be a failing score. You're not picking Miss America, and most of the other 49 candidates are pretty enough, especially when pretty is so subjective.

tchaffee 8y ago
> You get most of your signal in the first 5 minutes (first impressions and all that). One of the best things I ever learned from an experienced interviewer is to spend the rest of the interview trying to disprove your first impression. Otherwise, you're just making yourself a victim of confirmation bias. > Offering a "grievance process" where nervous candidates can plead their case for a mulligan telegraphs a (probably deserved) lack of confidence in your own company's hiring practices. I have a great deal of confidence in my hiring practices. I've rarely had a candidate reject an offer, so I'd guess the candidates also like it. I've even had candidates tell me that they think the interviewing process I've designed is really good and they learned how to be a better interviewer. It's not a really a grievance process. It's a simple "Here is why we don't think you're qualified (e.g you don't actually know any JS in reality) but if for some reason you think we got that wrong, please let us know." Once in a blue moon someone will come back with a legit response. > The purpose of an interviewing process for any serious business is not to find the best candidate, No true Scotsman? I sometimes have extremely specific hiring goals. I may for example want to hire the best JavaScript person available in town because the company needs to be a thought leader in that area. Every company is different. Don't assume your hiring needs are my hiring needs. For sure when my hiring needs are to find any qualified candidate, that goes pretty quickly.
- mchannon 8y ago
  > I've rarely had a candidate reject an offer, so I'd guess the candidates also like it. How many failed candidates did you ask?
  - tchaffee 8y ago
    I follow up with rejected candidates from time to time with a phone call. Often I'll follow up with a phone call and talk about the areas I think they could improve in and recommendations about how they could do that. They seem to really appreciate it. I'll close the call asking what they think about our interview process. They are mostly very happy with it and disappointed they didn't make the cut. I've unfortunately never had much constructive criticism about my interview process from a rejected candidate. The only criticism has been the rare few times someone thinks they are qualified and kind of lashes out because they didn't make the cut. "Well I didn't want to work for your company anyway" type of thing. Not much valuable info to go on. The valuable criticisms I have had are from colleagues over the years who have been in interviews with me participating themselves. Some of what I've improved over the years has been related to those criticisms. How about yourself? Do you ever follow up with rejected candidates about your own interview process? What techniques do you use to measure your hiring effectiveness and what steps are you taking to improve your process?
    - mchannon 8y ago
      I take a different approach; I've zoomed out from the problem, and looking at it from a macro level, I've concluded that the system is what's corrupt, not the candidates, recruiters, or hiring managers, and all of the individuals are victims toiling under a broken system. It's a business opportunity, and it's one I'm going after once my current project gets to a stopping point.

tchaffee 8y ago

> You get most of your signal in the first 5 minutes (first impressions and all that). One of the best things I ever learned from an experienced interviewer is to spend the rest of the interview trying to disprove your first impression. Otherwise, you're just making yourself a victim of confirmation bias. > Offering a "grievance process" where nervous candidates can plead their case for a mulligan telegraphs a (probably deserved) lack of confidence in your own company's hiring practices. I have a great deal of confidence in my hiring practices. I've rarely had a candidate reject an offer, so I'd guess the candidates also like it. I've even had candidates tell me that they think the interviewing process I've designed is really good and they learned how to be a better interviewer. It's not a really a grievance process. It's a simple "Here is why we don't think you're qualified (e.g you don't actually know any JS in reality) but if for some reason you think we got that wrong, please let us know." Once in a blue moon someone will come back with a legit response. > The purpose of an interviewing process for any serious business is not to find the best candidate, No true Scotsman? I sometimes have extremely specific hiring goals. I may for example want to hire the best JavaScript person available in town because the company needs to be a thought leader in that area. Every company is different. Don't assume your hiring needs are my hiring needs. For sure when my hiring needs are to find any qualified candidate, that goes pretty quickly.

mchannon 8y ago
> I've rarely had a candidate reject an offer, so I'd guess the candidates also like it. How many failed candidates did you ask?
- tchaffee 8y ago
  I follow up with rejected candidates from time to time with a phone call. Often I'll follow up with a phone call and talk about the areas I think they could improve in and recommendations about how they could do that. They seem to really appreciate it. I'll close the call asking what they think about our interview process. They are mostly very happy with it and disappointed they didn't make the cut. I've unfortunately never had much constructive criticism about my interview process from a rejected candidate. The only criticism has been the rare few times someone thinks they are qualified and kind of lashes out because they didn't make the cut. "Well I didn't want to work for your company anyway" type of thing. Not much valuable info to go on. The valuable criticisms I have had are from colleagues over the years who have been in interviews with me participating themselves. Some of what I've improved over the years has been related to those criticisms. How about yourself? Do you ever follow up with rejected candidates about your own interview process? What techniques do you use to measure your hiring effectiveness and what steps are you taking to improve your process?
  - mchannon 8y ago
    I take a different approach; I've zoomed out from the problem, and looking at it from a macro level, I've concluded that the system is what's corrupt, not the candidates, recruiters, or hiring managers, and all of the individuals are victims toiling under a broken system. It's a business opportunity, and it's one I'm going after once my current project gets to a stopping point.