3 ms·

Hiring is about satisficing, not optimizing. As long as your process gets you to a great candidate or two, it works and does all you need even if it filtered ou

Hiring is about satisficing, not optimizing. As long as your process gets you to a great candidate or two, it works and does all you need even if it filtered out someone who might have been 10% better (because it's not something which is possible to that accuracy during the limited time/effort plausible during an interview, and your final selection would not necessarily pick them) but a process that gets you to a candidate which seems great but has a 10% chance of being totally worthless is costly.

lapcat 4y ago
> Hiring is about satisficing, not optimizing. Yet the OP's suggestion was this: "don't have 500 interviews. Have at most 2 or 3 which altogether should not take more than 2 to 3 hours of somebodys time." In other words, the OP was recommending satisficing rather than optimizing. Companies waste so much time on interviewing. Their own time and candidate time. Hundreds of interviews, multiple rounds, just a massive amount of time for 1 job. It certainly feels like they're trying to optimize rather than satisfice.