3 ms·
There's no real cost if you think about it. It's cheaper to invest in the 1-3 candidates you want to bring in and actually hire (i.e they pass the personality f
by cik 7y ago
There's no real cost if you think about it. It's cheaper to invest in the 1-3 candidates you want to bring in and actually hire (i.e they pass the personality fit) than it is to make the wrong hire.
We absolutely don't compensate candidates for their time. From an economics perspective there's no value in the output, and the shared value is the opportunity for each side to determine if we have an alignment on fit. Each side makes an investment with an outcome based goal - that's why this is as equitable as we could make it.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- _throwawayyyyyy 7y agowell, you had me until this post. your volume is so low you can absolutely afford to pay candidates. given that your setup process is also automatic, it's offensive that you aren't. a candidate 'invests' their entire day's output in it and gets paid $0. your team 'invests' their entire day in the project and gets paid $XYZ dollars. are these equal "investments"? obviously not. you can afford it - paying candidates will be a business write off for you anyways. you're just not doing it because... reasons? really lost me with this post, it doesn't sound compassionate at all. you're using candidates the same way everyone else is, but the bar is so low that describing the process and giving feeedback got me excited.
- cik 7y agoI don't expect to be paid when I'm investing my time in my future, any more than I'd expect to pay the organization for giving me the opportunity to explore a future. There's an equal give and take during the interview process - at least if two parties understand that they're interviewing each other. For those that don't - neither rhetoric, nor money can instill those values.