4 ms·

> Rejecting far more candidates than you need to What do you mean by "than you need to"? I'm guessing for many companies (especially the ones with this kinds o

by tomp 8y ago

> Rejecting far more candidates than you need to What do you mean by "than you need to"? I'm guessing for many companies (especially the ones with this kinds of interviews), the limit is the number of hires they can do, not the number of candidates that apply... So by definition, you need to reject all but n (the number of open jobs)... Why wouldn't you reject them based on performance on interviews (as opposed to, by their CV or luck or something)?

arnvald 8y ago
In many cases companies don't interview all the candidates before making a decision, it's more on a rolling basis. You consider each candidate separately - you interview a candidate and then decide whether to hire him/her or not. In plenty of cases companies reject candidates who later perform successfully at similar roles, and this is the point of the parent comment. However this is kind of a desired effect, because not hiring a right candidate has lower cost than hiring a wrong candidate: - if you skip good candidate, because you're not sure whether they'll perform well, you just wait for more candidates to apply, it just slows down the process - if you hire wrong candidate, the candidate joins the team, underperforms and eventually is let go, but during the time that person works for you, you don't look for the right candidate for that role, which costs you more money and time
- aglavine 8y ago
  I did seven interviews for a top US bank. I didn't pass. They needed to fill dozens of positions. Two years later they opened the gates and hired a notorious complainer ex-coworker. That's the current state of affairs.
JamesBarney 8y ago
This might be true at Amazon, Google, or Netflix. But many companies have openings that sit vacant for months, even though perfectly great candidates applied for the job.
- LaserToy 8y ago
  Months? Years :). Know couple of teams in my current place (very well known company) that couldn’t hire for a year... and lost position, as business argued - if you can’t hire for a whole year you don’t really need t

by tomp 8y ago

arnvald 8y ago

In many cases companies don't interview all the candidates before making a decision, it's more on a rolling basis. You consider each candidate separately - you interview a candidate and then decide whether to hire him/her or not. In plenty of cases companies reject candidates who later perform successfully at similar roles, and this is the point of the parent comment. However this is kind of a desired effect, because not hiring a right candidate has lower cost than hiring a wrong candidate: - if you skip good candidate, because you're not sure whether they'll perform well, you just wait for more candidates to apply, it just slows down the process - if you hire wrong candidate, the candidate joins the team, underperforms and eventually is let go, but during the time that person works for you, you don't look for the right candidate for that role, which costs you more money and time

aglavine 8y ago
I did seven interviews for a top US bank. I didn't pass. They needed to fill dozens of positions. Two years later they opened the gates and hired a notorious complainer ex-coworker. That's the current state of affairs.

JamesBarney 8y ago

This might be true at Amazon, Google, or Netflix. But many companies have openings that sit vacant for months, even though perfectly great candidates applied for the job.

LaserToy 8y ago
Months? Years :). Know couple of teams in my current place (very well known company) that couldn’t hire for a year... and lost position, as business argued - if you can’t hire for a whole year you don’t really need t