3 ms·

It's not "best for everyone." Hired and fired quickly is better because when I have to dedicate weeks or a month of unpaid, uncompensated time to your process

It's not "best for everyone." Hired and fired quickly is better because when I have to dedicate weeks or a month of unpaid, uncompensated time to your process then I'm the one losing. You are already getting paid for putting in the work of interviewing me. If your team is stretched so thin that you need to put your time at a premium, that's a problem with your process not having enough throughput. How many people do you reject to fill one position? How many are "filtered" at later stages to fill one position?

igetspam 5y ago
If it's taking months, then they're doing it badly. Our hiring process is five rounds but it never takes more than a couple weeks, including the negotiation phase. Our data shows that we need something like 14 resumes to get one candidate worth interviewing. Of those, it takes 4-6 candidates for one hire. Hiring and firing fast means we also have to invest in onboarding, training and allowing people to settle in. During that time, we've filled the current position and we're no longer interviewing candidates. Once someone is fired, we have to go through the whole mess again. That would be the most wasteful model for everyone involved. By my math, that's a minimum of two months of time on a single person (I think six weeks to fully productive is reasonable) just to go back to searching again. And that's just the US and ignores the two week notice (or more) for each candidate. I hire in APAC too. Indian engineers are giving 60-90 day notices now and that's contractual. Two candidates, using your model, could easily take up a year. (Hiring in APAC take a long time already.) I can only assume you've had some bad experiences lately but your personal bias has created a really bad mental model for you that would be a net negative for everyone.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  > If it's taking months, then they're doing it badly. is not responsive to > I have to dedicate weeks or a month
  - igetspam 5y ago
    Sure it is. If a company's hiring process for a single candidate takes multiple months, that's bad. The candidate experience is critically important. We have five stages of our interview process, two of them involve speaking with multiple engineers. The whole process takes less than a month, as long as the candidate has time. In general, it's 2-2.5 weeks and that involves coordinating calls with engineers in the Americas, Europe and APAC. If it takes longer, it's always an issue with coordinating with the candidate schedule. (this is my experience with my hiring process)
    - ethanwillis 5y ago
      No it sure isn't because I never said months or multiple months.
      - igetspam 5y ago
        Fine. I'm mixing replies. A single month is still unreasonable. That's a bad candidate experience. That changes nothing about the number of people who interview you though, just how quickly.
        ethanwillis 5y ago
        Well due to real world constraints of scheduling even with people who's sole job is to interview candidates the speed at which you interview is most likely going to be a function of how many people need to interview you.

igetspam 5y ago

If it's taking months, then they're doing it badly. Our hiring process is five rounds but it never takes more than a couple weeks, including the negotiation phase. Our data shows that we need something like 14 resumes to get one candidate worth interviewing. Of those, it takes 4-6 candidates for one hire. Hiring and firing fast means we also have to invest in onboarding, training and allowing people to settle in. During that time, we've filled the current position and we're no longer interviewing candidates. Once someone is fired, we have to go through the whole mess again. That would be the most wasteful model for everyone involved. By my math, that's a minimum of two months of time on a single person (I think six weeks to fully productive is reasonable) just to go back to searching again. And that's just the US and ignores the two week notice (or more) for each candidate. I hire in APAC too. Indian engineers are giving 60-90 day notices now and that's contractual. Two candidates, using your model, could easily take up a year. (Hiring in APAC take a long time already.) I can only assume you've had some bad experiences lately but your personal bias has created a really bad mental model for you that would be a net negative for everyone.

pessimizer 5y ago
> If it's taking months, then they're doing it badly. is not responsive to > I have to dedicate weeks or a month
- igetspam 5y ago
  Sure it is. If a company's hiring process for a single candidate takes multiple months, that's bad. The candidate experience is critically important. We have five stages of our interview process, two of them involve speaking with multiple engineers. The whole process takes less than a month, as long as the candidate has time. In general, it's 2-2.5 weeks and that involves coordinating calls with engineers in the Americas, Europe and APAC. If it takes longer, it's always an issue with coordinating with the candidate schedule. (this is my experience with my hiring process)
  - ethanwillis 5y ago
    No it sure isn't because I never said months or multiple months.
    - igetspam 5y ago
      Fine. I'm mixing replies. A single month is still unreasonable. That's a bad candidate experience. That changes nothing about the number of people who interview you though, just how quickly.
      - ethanwillis 5y ago
        Well due to real world constraints of scheduling even with people who's sole job is to interview candidates the speed at which you interview is most likely going to be a function of how many people need to interview you.