3 ms·
No, you will hear back. We're trying really hard to keep to the 6 weeks thing but sometimes we don't succeed.
by dcre 5y ago
No, you will hear back. We're trying really hard to keep to the 6 weeks thing but sometimes we don't succeed.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- 0des 5y agoPlease get back to them today, this is a prompt or cue to rescue this one from falling through the cracks. You never know...
- robocat 5y agoI would think that startups would want to bias for people that can make good decisions quickly, within a short decision time. Perhaps hardware startups want more conservative employees? Also in my experience, a fabulous candidate is sometimes only available for a very short time window (they either have become available due to unforeseen circumstances, or they are snapped up by a faster mover). Is six weeks fast in your opinion?
- steveklabnik 5y agoIn general: no, we'd love for things to be faster than six weeks. We just get a tremendous amount of applicants, and we have a lot of work to do. So the queue gets backed up. Hiring is hard.
- dls2016 5y agoNot insinuating that I'm a "fabulous" candidate (also totally possible that I am!), but I've been experiencing the opposite. The quickest offers I've received have had the most red flags. The places I'd like to work seem to move slower and require more preparation. For instance Oxide has applicants put together a lot of written work and another company has a seemingly easy take-home project but which requires unfamiliar (to me) setup that I haven't had time to tackle. Then there are the faang-style interviews with loops scheduled perhaps weeks in the future. I may send another round of applications soon, but I'm going to be more selective so I can manage the process better.
- dls2016 5y agoThank you, that does help. I thankfully have some flexibility in my search… and I promise the other replies aren’t alt accounts!