4 ms·

Why should a company value candidates' time? Edit: To be clear, corporations are morally bankrupt slow AI whose goals are increasingly tangential to ours. Howe

by rexpop 8y ago

Why should a company value candidates' time? Edit: To be clear, corporations are morally bankrupt slow AI whose goals are increasingly tangential to ours. However, their proponents must have _some_ justification for valuing what we value (in this case, candidates' time), or else admit the above moral bankruptcy. I am not being sarcastic, I am challenging this forum's many corporatists to reassure me that corporations are motivated to accommodate a basic decency represented by valuing candidates' time. Downvotes on a simple question, as usual, evidence this forum's continued inadequacy as a harbor for empirical discussion. I am not trolling, nor sarcastic. I am simply ignorant of the corporatist argument for valuing candidates time.

dominotw 8y ago
fair question. not sure why its downvoted. Airbnb bought me onsite for 2 day interview process and kicked me out after 1 st interview. I went to the beach and museums in SFO for 2 days. Not the best use of my vacation time but not the worst either.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  If it's sarcastic the remark is fine. Otherwise it reflects the harshness of the current environment where common courtesy doesn't count anymore.
  - rexpop 8y ago
    Please see my edit. I sorry my question registered as a defense. It was not rhetorical.
nullandvoid 8y ago
Because looking for a new job !== I have time to piss down the drain? Many people are still working a full time job and have kids whilst trying to juggle landing a new role
- rexpop 8y ago
  I completely agree, because I am a compassionate human. Corporations are not, and would need a financial justification to extend you common courtesy.
  - dajohnson89 8y ago
    You're correct. And if a company wants me to spend 10-20 hours and 5 rounds interviewing with them, I will probably not do it. They'll be fine without me, sure. But they're the ones looking for talent, and they know the risk of putting so many hoops for candidates to jump through.
    - TrinaryWorksToo 8y ago
      They may be "fine" without you, but every person that gets turned away means a higher salary they have to pay the next person or an increased wait time for the next candidate. Small costs can accumulate.
natalyarostova 8y ago
It's a fair question. The best argument is if you give a horrible interviewee experience, they will tell all their friends about how much you suck, or post about how much you suck on HN, and that represents a cost. Particularly if you treat a well connected talented engineer poorly, and they tell their friends, or even end up not using your service in the future out of spite.
- rexpop 8y ago
  > post about how much you suck on HN, and that represents a cost This may be true. I have only seen candidacy experience complaint posts where the author deliberately neglected to mention the company's name.
pfranz 8y ago
Depending on the other options your candidate has, you could be filtering out the best candidates. You could also ruin the company's reputation. I've seen close friends have all-day interviews, or require spec work (requiring higher end hardware and a couple days of dedicated work) as part of the interview process. Peers blow off those companies or knock them down a tier when seeking work. Just having an all-day interview can make scheduling way more difficult, delaying it until that other job with a 2-hour interview has happened and moved onto negotiating benefits.
- rexpop 8y ago
  > Peers blow off those companies or knock them down a tier when seeking work. Unless I am mistaken, this only happens when candidates' experiences are shared, and only impacts business decisions if shared widely.
  - pfranz 8y ago
    The situation is I apply to 4 jobs, 1 requests spec work requiring a couple days of dedicated time while the rest are happy with what's in my portfolio. That 1 job is less of a priority compared to the others. The same applies to 8 hour interviews or multiple interviews. It might not be common place, but I've learned to ask upfront about the start-to-finish hiring process. I'm not saying its unwarranted or even a hidden cost to the business--just that it raises the burden and likely will filter out qualified candidates. I do think networking and shared experiences you mentioned should be thought about. That's often the best/cheapest way to get qualified candidates (why referral bonuses are a thing). If candidates are telling each other informally or on something like GlassDoor how onerous the interview process is, you have to compensate by reaching out with things like ads and job fairs and do the filtering yourself.
PeterisP 8y ago
Because that results in worse candidates due to self-selection - the really good candidates who you want to hire are in demand, know that, and thus would simply refuse to participate in a process that's wasting their time and go interview elsewhere; while the desperate candidates (the very ones you'd want to filter out) will stick through.
- rexpop 8y ago
  Corporations value candidates time because good candidates value their own time?

by rexpop 8y ago

dominotw 8y ago

fair question. not sure why its downvoted. Airbnb bought me onsite for 2 day interview process and kicked me out after 1 st interview. I went to the beach and museums in SFO for 2 days. Not the best use of my vacation time but not the worst either.

maxxxxx 8y ago
If it's sarcastic the remark is fine. Otherwise it reflects the harshness of the current environment where common courtesy doesn't count anymore.
- rexpop 8y ago
  Please see my edit. I sorry my question registered as a defense. It was not rhetorical.

nullandvoid 8y ago

Because looking for a new job !== I have time to piss down the drain? Many people are still working a full time job and have kids whilst trying to juggle landing a new role

rexpop 8y ago
I completely agree, because I am a compassionate human. Corporations are not, and would need a financial justification to extend you common courtesy.
- dajohnson89 8y ago
  You're correct. And if a company wants me to spend 10-20 hours and 5 rounds interviewing with them, I will probably not do it. They'll be fine without me, sure. But they're the ones looking for talent, and they know the risk of putting so many hoops for candidates to jump through.
  - TrinaryWorksToo 8y ago
    They may be "fine" without you, but every person that gets turned away means a higher salary they have to pay the next person or an increased wait time for the next candidate. Small costs can accumulate.

natalyarostova 8y ago

It's a fair question. The best argument is if you give a horrible interviewee experience, they will tell all their friends about how much you suck, or post about how much you suck on HN, and that represents a cost. Particularly if you treat a well connected talented engineer poorly, and they tell their friends, or even end up not using your service in the future out of spite.

rexpop 8y ago
> post about how much you suck on HN, and that represents a cost This may be true. I have only seen candidacy experience complaint posts where the author deliberately neglected to mention the company's name.

pfranz 8y ago

Depending on the other options your candidate has, you could be filtering out the best candidates. You could also ruin the company's reputation. I've seen close friends have all-day interviews, or require spec work (requiring higher end hardware and a couple days of dedicated work) as part of the interview process. Peers blow off those companies or knock them down a tier when seeking work. Just having an all-day interview can make scheduling way more difficult, delaying it until that other job with a 2-hour interview has happened and moved onto negotiating benefits.

rexpop 8y ago
> Peers blow off those companies or knock them down a tier when seeking work. Unless I am mistaken, this only happens when candidates' experiences are shared, and only impacts business decisions if shared widely.
- pfranz 8y ago
  The situation is I apply to 4 jobs, 1 requests spec work requiring a couple days of dedicated time while the rest are happy with what's in my portfolio. That 1 job is less of a priority compared to the others. The same applies to 8 hour interviews or multiple interviews. It might not be common place, but I've learned to ask upfront about the start-to-finish hiring process. I'm not saying its unwarranted or even a hidden cost to the business--just that it raises the burden and likely will filter out qualified candidates. I do think networking and shared experiences you mentioned should be thought about. That's often the best/cheapest way to get qualified candidates (why referral bonuses are a thing). If candidates are telling each other informally or on something like GlassDoor how onerous the interview process is, you have to compensate by reaching out with things like ads and job fairs and do the filtering yourself.

PeterisP 8y ago

Because that results in worse candidates due to self-selection - the really good candidates who you want to hire are in demand, know that, and thus would simply refuse to participate in a process that's wasting their time and go interview elsewhere; while the desperate candidates (the very ones you'd want to filter out) will stick through.

rexpop 8y ago
Corporations value candidates time because good candidates value their own time?