3 ms·

There are enough lemons on the job market that this barely even bears examination. Anyone who's ever looked at a pile of incoming resumes can see at a glance th

There are enough lemons on the job market that this barely even bears examination. Anyone who's ever looked at a pile of incoming resumes can see at a glance that selecting at random from them is going to get a viable employee with vanishingly small probability. Anyone's who's tried to interview from even a selected pool of those can assume that the actual pool of candidates is overall even worse than it looks on paper. Actual hiring results look a lot in abstract like dartboarding after trying to filter out the obviously unfit applicants, and while people can reasonably disagree on how hard to filter, not at all seems like a good way to put yourself out of business.

lapcat 4y ago
Filter your resumes however you like before you throw the dart. In any case, the dart throwing method can't be criticized simply because it produces lemons, because no hiring process is perfect. Every company from top to bottom makes bad hires. So you've got to compare the overall results, which will contain both good and bad. One big advantage of the dart throwing method is that it will randomly select good people who tend to be overlooked by hiring managers because they don't interview well.
- naniwaduni 4y ago
  > Filter your resumes however you like before you throw the dart. Yes, now your process is indistinguishable from existing hiring pipelines. The darts happen to be weighted in all sorts of ways you don't have full insight into, but hey, so are literal dart throws. > In any case, the dart throwing method can't be criticized simply because it produces lemons, because no hiring process is perfect. Every company from top to bottom makes bad hires. So you've got to compare the overall results, which will contain both good and bad. The problem is not that it makes some bad hires. The problem is that you will make >90% bad hires if you don't do filtering, and once you bring a few of them on and word gets out you will be making net >100% bad hires by this process.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > Yes, now your process is indistinguishable from existing hiring pipelines. How so, when there are no interviews? Everyone seems to take interviews to be the most important part of existing hiring pipelines. Interviews are certainly the most time-consuming and expensive part of existing hiring pipelines. > once you bring a few of them on and word gets out you will be making net >100% bad hires by this process To be clear, I was only entertaining the dartboard selection part of the proposal and not "for at least two years without no possibility of having to fire them". You should definitely fire people who can't do the job. I think you're also assuming that if "word gets out" then you will only attract more bad candidates, but it will also attract more good candidates who hate the existing hiring pipelines, some to the extent that they even refuse to apply for many jobs.

lapcat 4y ago

Filter your resumes however you like before you throw the dart. In any case, the dart throwing method can't be criticized simply because it produces lemons, because no hiring process is perfect. Every company from top to bottom makes bad hires. So you've got to compare the overall results, which will contain both good and bad. One big advantage of the dart throwing method is that it will randomly select good people who tend to be overlooked by hiring managers because they don't interview well.

naniwaduni 4y ago
> Filter your resumes however you like before you throw the dart. Yes, now your process is indistinguishable from existing hiring pipelines. The darts happen to be weighted in all sorts of ways you don't have full insight into, but hey, so are literal dart throws. > In any case, the dart throwing method can't be criticized simply because it produces lemons, because no hiring process is perfect. Every company from top to bottom makes bad hires. So you've got to compare the overall results, which will contain both good and bad. The problem is not that it makes some bad hires. The problem is that you will make >90% bad hires if you don't do filtering, and once you bring a few of them on and word gets out you will be making net >100% bad hires by this process.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > Yes, now your process is indistinguishable from existing hiring pipelines. How so, when there are no interviews? Everyone seems to take interviews to be the most important part of existing hiring pipelines. Interviews are certainly the most time-consuming and expensive part of existing hiring pipelines. > once you bring a few of them on and word gets out you will be making net >100% bad hires by this process To be clear, I was only entertaining the dartboard selection part of the proposal and not "for at least two years without no possibility of having to fire them". You should definitely fire people who can't do the job. I think you're also assuming that if "word gets out" then you will only attract more bad candidates, but it will also attract more good candidates who hate the existing hiring pipelines, some to the extent that they even refuse to apply for many jobs.