3 ms·
> How is a process like this in any way shape or form efficient or productive? Because hiring the wrong person becomes a colossal waste of time and money.
by whywhywhywhy 5y ago
> How is a process like this in any way shape or form efficient or productive?
Because hiring the wrong person becomes a colossal waste of time and money.
- gcheong 5y agoThat’s the standard excuse but how much less of a chance do you really think there is to hire the wrong person after 7 interviews vs say 3 or even 1 done well vs the time you’re spending trying to reduce that risk? More opinions isn’t always better. You can’t eliminate risk entirely and I don’t think it’s as as much of a waste as companies often claim it is.
- Apreche 5y agoIf the hiring process is faster, then the time wasted bringing in the wrong person is decreased significantly.
- PeterisP 5y agoDefinitely not, the hiring process is just a tiny part of "the time wasted bringing in the wrong person" - onboarding and training take far more of company time than that.
- ipaddr 5y agoThat's only because you spent thousands having candidates go through 7 interviews.
- b20000 5y agothis
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoStronger: You're also rejecting more candidates. So you're not only wasting the time of 7 interviews, you're wasting the time of 7 interviewss times the N people you interview before you find one you're willing to hire. And then, as others have said, there's the cost of the people who look at your hiring process and decide that they won't bother to try to jump through your hoops. Hint: They are not the least valuable candidates.
- NaturalPhallacy 5y agoI get 3-5 requests to interview from Amazon a week. I ignore most of them completely because I know too much about them. Guy I worked closely with at a certain cobbler in Beaverton Oregon you've probably heard of. He left for good reason and had lots of bad things to day. The managed to claw him back after about a year with "a huge pile of money" right after he had a kid. Up front (before talking to the hiring manager) artificial coding challenge is a massive red flag, and I'll bail at that stage with most companies. Last week I asked one of their spear fishers via LinkedIn if they're still doing that. She confirmed they are so I don't need to talk to them for a while.
- whywhywhywhy 5y agoInterviews are the smallest timesink in all of hiring. I’ve personally whittled down 1000+ resumes to 2 and then those 2 interviewed with 4 people. We found the right person though. The number of times I’ve seen a wrong hire fumble their way into our company and burn months and months of time then we have to hire again and then the months of fixing the screw ups disgusts me.
- csa 5y agoAs mentioned above, does 5 or 7 produce a significantly better result than 3 (or 2 or 1)? I’m guessing not. Two or maybe three interviews should be adequate for most positions. I think the reality is that most people are pretty bad at selection, no one wants to shoulder the blame when things go sideways, so the solution is just to create a system where everyone (and therefore no one) is to blame. In reality, this creates an environment that is default No instead of default Yes. Whether that’s good or not for a specific company at a specific instant of time is really something only they can decide. Fwiw, pro-tip, eliciting work samples that are close to the actual job are the best predictors of success. This may create some burden on the hiring org to create a good process, but it reaps huge dividends.