Yeah, so one thing that is pretty naturally frustrating is that hiring processes are incredibly unfair in the sense that perceived quality of candidates by the

Yeah, so one thing that is pretty naturally frustrating is that hiring processes are incredibly unfair in the sense that perceived quality of candidates by the process is often wildly unrelated to how they would perform at the job and, in particular, the processes often rate poorly many candidates who would make excellent hires. This unfairness does not feel good but I think it would be worse to require companies to be fair (likely their definition of fairness would be bad and processes would converge more meaning all companies were competing for exactly the same candidates) and it is reasonable for companies for these processes to be unfair as their goal is to hire N candidates who meet their bar, rather than to find all candidates who meet their bar and randomly select N of them. I do think it is bad for companies but I think it’s bad that the processes are ineffective (ie missing excellent candidates; overpaying for mid candidates due to competing with everyone else for the same people) rather than because they are unfair. One thing to note about the article is the person seems to have had some reasonable variation in interview process between companies. Perhaps if the hypothetical dry cleaner management software maker applied to a company that did work-sample tests, they would get a chance to shine by being good at programming and taking feedback and working on actual problems independently for example, even if they didn’t do a good job at passing the candidate screen or doing ‘algorithms’ at a more traditional company.