4 ms·
The answer is simple, but you're not gonna like it. 1) Set minimum qualifications 2) For everyone who passes step one, run a lottery 3) That's it Most inter
by bsanr2 7y ago
The answer is simple, but you're not gonna like it.
1) Set minimum qualifications
2) For everyone who passes step one, run a lottery
3) That's it
Most interview processes are about as good as a coin flip at determining if a candidate is a good fit. People are biased (especially people who think they're objective, which describes a lotnof hring managers), and so are the systems built on our decision-making. So, apply similar logic as to the kind that supports index fund investment: cut "people" out of the decision-making, and make the process faster and cheaper by relying on a simple set of objective criteria and the way risk distributes across a population.
- clarry 7y ago> 1) Set minimum qualifications This is where things will go south for most big organizations anyway. They don't know what they need, or they can't specify what they need, and often this part is done by someone other than the team that actually needs people. So you find jobs where the requirements are 3 years of experience with C# and at least BSc in comp sci while the team needs someone to work on embedded C & Ada and they couldn't give a shit about BSc (or any other degree for that matter), just that you can do the job.
- bsanr2 7y agoRight, so then the question is if the other processes currently in place serve as mitigating factors to the inadequacy those qualifications present to the selection system's efficacy. I'd argue that they don't, in which case you're spending a lot more time and money for the same results. If they do, then would fixing the qualification issue be less expensive than interviewing et al.? Again, assuming that you have a choice of similar outcomes at different price points.