5 ms·

I've suspected for a while that companies with long, drawn-out hiring processes are using the delay to see if someone better (for some definition of "better") w

I've suspected for a while that companies with long, drawn-out hiring processes are using the delay to see if someone better (for some definition of "better") will come along. In the current market, you are probably right about the problem being the funding situation; most companies in general, and startups (I suppose) specifically, are desperately bad about foreseeing bad outcomes. There's a hefty bias there. On the other hand, I guess you just have to keep looking for a job until you get an actual commitment---don't stop because you might have one.

Grustaf 4y ago
> I've suspected for a while that companies with long, drawn-out hiring processes are using the delay to see if someone better (for some definition of "better") will come along. Ah, that's an interesting explanation, seems much more likely than a hustle to get (not even very cheap) short term labour. That could be the case at least for the second of the companies, for the first one I think it might be more down to inexperience or recklessness.
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> I've suspected for a while that companies with long, drawn-out hiring processes are using the delay to see if someone better (for some definition of "better") will come along. In a way, yes. Hiring isn’t a game of finding the first person who walks through the door who passes an arbitrary bar. It takes some time to collect candidates, interview multiple people, and choose which one to hire. However, that process should stop after the offer letter is extended. A company that rescinds offers as part of their normal hiring process would be very unusual. I suspect in this case the companies’ explanations (financial situation changed) is honest. I always try to get candidates through the interview process as fast as possible, but recently it’s usually the candidates who are extending the process out. A lot of people like the idea of shopping around at different companies with your offer letter in hand, which can take weeks or months if you let them. At some point we have to thank the candidate for their time and inform them that we’re moving on to other candidates, because we need to hire someone.
- ryankicks 4y ago
  Lots of good points here, on both sides of the hiring equation. In a strong market, candidates have been able to shop around, get multiple offers (based on interest, comp, etc) and pick the best one for them. If for nothing else, it's useful to get multiple data points to understand the state of the market. Candidates should absolutely do this -- to make sure they're making the right decision based on the possible options out there. We tell our founders that setting deadlines to accept an offer are not effective, especially given the above. It adds unnecessary stress to the situation, and it sets a bad tone for the relationship. We also tell our founders to ask what timeline the candidate is looking at, and say when the company is hoping to make a decision. And if those don't align from the start, to note it upfront. (We also ask out founders to write one-pagers on their interview process, to communicate and set those expectations at the beginning of the process. That's fairly new, and taking some time to adopt, but we're working on it.)
imroot 4y ago
I have commented in the past that the longest hiring cycle was almost 10 months at RedHat back in 2005, and I've had it be as short as a week in the early 2010's for a TechStars backed company. If a company doesn't have a hiring plan that doesn't end in 4-6 weeks, I'm not interested in even communicating with that company. I have no issues with trials or paid projects: I would actually prefer a trial or a paid project to starting somewhere only to find out that half the infrastructure including their MongoDB instances are running on Windows servers. (Ironically enough, in the Medical field, it takes 12-18 months to get hired because of the due diligence involved: my significant other was shocked when I was able to go from looking to hired in less than 28 days back in 2017!)

Grustaf 4y ago

> I've suspected for a while that companies with long, drawn-out hiring processes are using the delay to see if someone better (for some definition of "better") will come along. Ah, that's an interesting explanation, seems much more likely than a hustle to get (not even very cheap) short term labour. That could be the case at least for the second of the companies, for the first one I think it might be more down to inexperience or recklessness.

PragmaticPulp 4y ago

> I've suspected for a while that companies with long, drawn-out hiring processes are using the delay to see if someone better (for some definition of "better") will come along. In a way, yes. Hiring isn’t a game of finding the first person who walks through the door who passes an arbitrary bar. It takes some time to collect candidates, interview multiple people, and choose which one to hire. However, that process should stop after the offer letter is extended. A company that rescinds offers as part of their normal hiring process would be very unusual. I suspect in this case the companies’ explanations (financial situation changed) is honest. I always try to get candidates through the interview process as fast as possible, but recently it’s usually the candidates who are extending the process out. A lot of people like the idea of shopping around at different companies with your offer letter in hand, which can take weeks or months if you let them. At some point we have to thank the candidate for their time and inform them that we’re moving on to other candidates, because we need to hire someone.

ryankicks 4y ago
Lots of good points here, on both sides of the hiring equation. In a strong market, candidates have been able to shop around, get multiple offers (based on interest, comp, etc) and pick the best one for them. If for nothing else, it's useful to get multiple data points to understand the state of the market. Candidates should absolutely do this -- to make sure they're making the right decision based on the possible options out there. We tell our founders that setting deadlines to accept an offer are not effective, especially given the above. It adds unnecessary stress to the situation, and it sets a bad tone for the relationship. We also tell our founders to ask what timeline the candidate is looking at, and say when the company is hoping to make a decision. And if those don't align from the start, to note it upfront. (We also ask out founders to write one-pagers on their interview process, to communicate and set those expectations at the beginning of the process. That's fairly new, and taking some time to adopt, but we're working on it.)

imroot 4y ago

I have commented in the past that the longest hiring cycle was almost 10 months at RedHat back in 2005, and I've had it be as short as a week in the early 2010's for a TechStars backed company. If a company doesn't have a hiring plan that doesn't end in 4-6 weeks, I'm not interested in even communicating with that company. I have no issues with trials or paid projects: I would actually prefer a trial or a paid project to starting somewhere only to find out that half the infrastructure including their MongoDB instances are running on Windows servers. (Ironically enough, in the Medical field, it takes 12-18 months to get hired because of the due diligence involved: my significant other was shocked when I was able to go from looking to hired in less than 28 days back in 2017!)